Multi-Role fighter (MR-X) F-16 Replacement ("4.5 Generation Fighter")

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
1,706
Seems like this a cleansheet will be designed with AI and MOTS processors in mind. This is now barely a rounding error on the planes and add exponential capabilities.
You might want to take a look at the software engineering costs on the F-35. Hardware without software is meaningless. The F-35 needed so many software engineers USAF had to abandon its investment in Ada (aka Mil-Std-1815A) because it simply couldn't source enough Ada trained engineers and had to settle on the far less suitable C/C++ instead.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
695
Reaction score
523
If we had half a brain (we don't), we could simply cite industrial concerns and build a slew of Boeing's JSF design which we already paid for.

But we haven't paid for an actual working Boeing JSF.
We paid for more of an actual working Boeing JSF than we have for any other (known) extant tactical combat aircraft design excepting the one in production. It's closer to cutting metal/laying composites than anything else public. They just need something quick and dirty to recap, imo. They need something more survivable than the legacy fleet, and cheap enough to be bought in numbers to drive it even lower and be attritable (both in terms of near-peer combat losses and burning hours off the airframe in low-intensity conflict). They'll be flying rehabbed Eagles into the year 2222 if they try to develop and field another 20 year JSF acquisition program for tac air.
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
241
One question - I think an interesting question - is whether substantially overmatching enemies is a good idea. I understand the old Royal Navy doctrine of beating an alliance of the two next most powerful navies... but the problem is that the F-22's combination of low observability, next generation sensors, and super-cruise purportedly gave it enormous potential kill ratios (I think the exchange ratios quoted against existing American 4th gen fighters would represent that highest in history)!

This forces rivals to develop counters... new sensors to combat low observability and their own next generation fighters. I suppose that it is arguable that there is utility in producing designs that are so cutting edge ('bleeding edge') that the price means rivals have to choose not to contest such technology in order to stave off bankruptcy... but that also is a strategic victory which could be described as burning more money faster than other countries can afford - which obviously has costs. There is also the possibility of cheaper asymmetric solutions being found which mean that rivals don't have to spend as much.

So, I could definitely see an appeal in not forcing rivals to innovate - no F-22, no B-2, would mean less innovation of technologies to counter low-observable aircraft... less advancement of technology. A non-innovative solution could slow the development of new technologies that risk making the F-35 obsolete. The argument is essentially to not build Dreadnaught and instead invest in maintaining a fleet of enough refined pre-dreadnaughts to counter the two other largest navies.

Is overmatching wise?
 

aim9xray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
635
Reaction score
430
You might want to take a look at the software engineering costs on the F-35. Hardware without software is meaningless. The F-35 needed so many software engineers USAF had to abandon its investment in Ada (aka Mil-Std-1815A) because it simply couldn't source enough Ada trained engineers and had to settle on the far less suitable C/C++ instead.
PFFFT! I *knew* that ADA was a non-starter in the open market by the mid-90s when Borland never came out with "Turbo ADA". And without an ADA environment inexpensively available in the open market, you were never going to get enough people trained to sustain an eco-system of developers. Instead, you had a captive market of very expensive packages and even more expensive captive training environments. (Written as someone who used Turbo C/C++ to prototype code before heading over to the VAX with the Mark Williams pre-ANSI C cross compiler.)

As to the suitability of ADA, I'll not get into language wars; there are other forums for that, I'm sure. I will point out that this is more of a theology issue if you are not taking the limitations of your target hardware environment into consideration. Believe me, C is an incredible luxury and quite suitable compared to working in your CPU's native assembly language, particularly in in "hard" real time.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,947
Reaction score
5,824

Better link:

Congrats to them, they re-invented the new Japonese fighter (Shinjin, F-3) or its demonstrator.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
900
Reaction score
1,554
it doesnt look like the Shin-shin or X-2 at all. its more or less the F-16XL made by a fan-art.
honestly i think its just some one trying to build off this news to hype up the book they are selling.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,947
Reaction score
5,824
Half-seriously: imagine if the deficiencies and costs and delays in the F-35 (which already forced a new buy of new F-15s, and the F-16 may return, too !) force USAF to shop for those new Asia fighters... imagine if, ten years down the road, they have to buy KF-X... :eek::eek::eek:
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
900
Reaction score
1,554
Half-seriously: imagine if the deficiencies and costs and delays in the F-35 (which already forced a new buy of new F-15s, and the F-16 may return, too !) force USAF to shop for those new Asia fighters... imagine if, ten years down the road, they have to buy KF-X... :eek::eek::eek:
you know, I wouldn't be surprised.
USAF is going to lease some Korean T-50s until the T-7 gets ready?
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
4,203
@DWG : be aware that F-35 avionics performances, particularly in the fusion domain are a direct results of the VLO performances.

Parting one from another wouldn't be rational.

I'll have to disagree with you there. Sensor fusion is purely dependent on computing power - taking every bit of data, tagging it with time and position to cross-correlate over multiple sensors into a single picture. Stealth may permit you to get a bit closer to acquire data, but processing that data is purely a computational issue. A non-stealth design doesn't have to compromise antennae design, and moderate output power, for low-observability, so can potentially gather greater amounts of data at longer ranges.
It's not how fusion is presented by their maker or their users...
I know it's a commune practice in marketing to re-use buzz words here and there but in good sciences there are parameters that won't pass the test.
As an example, fusion is all about the sampling quality, something that only a VLO can ensure.

Bae never claimed their suite on the F-15EX was anything like what the F-35 is in that domain.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,183
Reaction score
599
One question - I think an interesting question - is whether substantially overmatching enemies is a good idea. I understand the old Royal Navy doctrine of beating an alliance of the two next most powerful navies... but the problem is that the F-22's combination of low observability, next generation sensors, and super-cruise purportedly gave it enormous potential kill ratios (I think the exchange ratios quoted against existing American 4th gen fighters would represent that highest in history)!

This forces rivals to develop counters... new sensors to combat low observability and their own next generation fighters. I suppose that it is arguable that there is utility in producing designs that are so cutting edge ('bleeding edge') that the price means rivals have to choose not to contest such technology in order to stave off bankruptcy... but that also is a strategic victory which could be described as burning more money faster than other countries can afford - which obviously has costs. There is also the possibility of cheaper asymmetric solutions being found which mean that rivals don't have to spend as much.

So, I could definitely see an appeal in not forcing rivals to innovate - no F-22, no B-2, would mean less innovation of technologies to counter low-observable aircraft... less advancement of technology. A non-innovative solution could slow the development of new technologies that risk making the F-35 obsolete. The argument is essentially to not build Dreadnaught and instead invest in maintaining a fleet of enough refined pre-dreadnaughts to counter the two other largest navies.

Is overmatching wise?
1. That ship sailed, and some time ago (J-20s, Su-57s, etc.)
2. The introduction of “stealth” aircraft was primarily driven by the need to maintain half-way reasonable survival rates against increasingly sophisticated and effective air defence systems, primarily SAM systems. Hence simulated air to air combat ratios were really only a small part of the picture.
3. Even the point of comparison is faulty; the UK didn’t really have a choice to not introduce dreadnought-type all-big-gun battleships; that was an idea percolating around the world’s naval powers for some time, the US and Japan were there or there abouts in introducing this innovation (dreadnought battleships could have easily become known as Satsuma battleships instead). And in the context of the naval race with Imperial Germany the UK’s real-world options were limited; they stole a first-adopter lead and had the building capacity to keep it.
4. I would however agree that there would be other scenarios were a country or countries may agree that pursuing a potential short-term technical advantage may not end up good for them and everyone else (e.g. space based nuclear weapons).
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,931
Reaction score
2,469
Half-seriously: imagine if the deficiencies and costs and delays in the F-35 (which already forced a new buy of new F-15s, and the F-16 may return, too !) force USAF to shop for those new Asia fighters... imagine if, ten years down the road, they have to buy KF-X... :eek::eek::eek:
you know, I wouldn't be surprised.
USAF is going to lease some Korean T-50s until the T-7 gets ready?

Not really. The idea was to use a handful of T-50s (4-8 aircraft) for curriculum development in parallel with the T-7 flight test campaign. The closest analogue would be getting some KFX as aggressor aircraft, not operational units.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,947
Reaction score
5,824
Half-seriously: imagine if the deficiencies and costs and delays in the F-35 (which already forced a new buy of new F-15s, and the F-16 may return, too !) force USAF to shop for those new Asia fighters... imagine if, ten years down the road, they have to buy KF-X... :eek::eek::eek:
you know, I wouldn't be surprised.
USAF is going to lease some Korean T-50s until the T-7 gets ready?

Not really. The idea was to use a handful of T-50s (4-8 aircraft) for curriculum development in parallel with the T-7 flight test campaign. The closest analogue would be getting some KFX as aggressor aircraft, not operational units.

"Pandora box"... once you've opened it, only once...

"damn, those T-50 trainers were damn fine aircraft. South Korea really did a fine job designing his own indigenous supersonic aircraft... that trainer, then the attack variant, and hey, look at that KF-X, damn fine aircraft, too, how about some instead of F-15EX..."

Just kidding of course. Lockheed is part of KF-X and thus they will ensure it stays a safe distance from their beloved F-35, of which they have 3000 in order...
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
4,203
"Pandora box"... once you've opened it, only once...

"damn, those T-50 trainers were damn fine aircraft. South Korea really did a fine job designing his own indigenous supersonic aircraft... that trainer, then the attack variant, and hey, look at that KF-X, damn fine aircraft, too, how about some instead of F-15EX..."

Just kidding of course. Lockheed is part of KF-X and thus they will ensure it stays a safe distance from their beloved F-35, of which they have 3000 in order...
Well, isn't France the country stuck with expensive PC-21 and derelict Alphajets?
 
Last edited:

Flyaway

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
6,842
Reaction score
5,841
I seen some suggest that other than internal weapons carriage the F-16 variant with much reduced radar cross section that they offered to India as the F-21 would probably fit the bill for what they're looking for, be cheap to build and operate, and save a tonne of money on developing something from scratch.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
1,706
@DWG : be aware that F-35 avionics performances, particularly in the fusion domain are a direct results of the VLO performances.

Parting one from another wouldn't be rational.

I'll have to disagree with you there. Sensor fusion is purely dependent on computing power - taking every bit of data, tagging it with time and position to cross-correlate over multiple sensors into a single picture. Stealth may permit you to get a bit closer to acquire data, but processing that data is purely a computational issue. A non-stealth design doesn't have to compromise antennae design, and moderate output power, for low-observability, so can potentially gather greater amounts of data at longer ranges.
It's not how fusion is presented by their maker or their users...
I know it's a commune practice in marketing to re-use buzz words here and there but in good sciences there are parameters that won't pass the test.
As an example, fusion is all about the sampling quality, something that only a VLO can ensure.

Bae never claimed their suite on the F-15EX was anything like what the F-35 is in that domain.
You can stick with the buzzwords if you like, but I'm talking about the scientific definition, the combination of information from two or more sensors to give a combined result greater than a single sensor can produce on its own. As for example when a nav system combines INS and GPS.

If you want to try and use signal quality to try and limit the definition, you still can't exclude non-VLO platforms because signal quality is based on three things - original signal amplitude, range, and the ability of the antenna to distinguish the received signal amplitude from background, which is antenna dependent, not platform dependent.

And seeing as you've brought the F-15 into the discussion, shall we discuss the Talon HATE pod, and its data fusion role?
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
4,203
Well we can discuss but would it be appropriate to refute what's the industry has brought to this debate when they came forward with example!?

Fiddling with ingredients doesn't ensure good cuisine.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
1,706
The argument is essentially to not build Dreadnaught and instead invest in maintaining a fleet of enough refined pre-dreadnaughts to counter the two other largest navies.

Is overmatching wise?
3. Even the point of comparison is faulty; the UK didn’t really have a choice to not introduce dreadnought-type all-big-gun battleships; that was an idea percolating around the world’s naval powers for some time, the US and Japan were there or there abouts in introducing this innovation (dreadnought battleships could have easily become known as Satsuma battleships instead).

And if not Satsumas, then whatever name Cuniberti's all-big-gun design received, or South Carolina's -- the Regia Marina declined to build Cunibert's design, but allowed him to publish his concepts in Janes, in 1903, _two years_ before Dreadnought was laid down, while South Carolina was laid down before Dreadnought, but launched later.

You can also see a parallel in internal RN opposition to introducing, and then improving, the submarine. The RN's superiority was dependent on the battleline, but the submarine was a disruptive technology that threatened that. But those luddite voices failed to realise that that ship had already sailed and that even if the RN didn't adopt the submarine, other navies already were.
 

trose213

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
299
Reaction score
149
Seems like this a cleansheet will be designed with AI and MOTS processors in mind. This is now barely a rounding error on the planes and add exponential capabilities.
You might want to take a look at the software engineering costs on the F-35. Hardware without software is meaningless. The F-35 needed so many software engineers USAF had to abandon its investment in Ada (aka Mil-Std-1815A) because it simply couldn't source enough Ada trained engineers and had to settle on the far less suitable C/C++ instead.

Because the Boomers were writing the software.

 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,947
Reaction score
5,824
Seems like this a cleansheet will be designed with AI and MOTS processors in mind. This is now barely a rounding error on the planes and add exponential capabilities.
You might want to take a look at the software engineering costs on the F-35. Hardware without software is meaningless. The F-35 needed so many software engineers USAF had to abandon its investment in Ada (aka Mil-Std-1815A) because it simply couldn't source enough Ada trained engineers and had to settle on the far less suitable C/C++ instead.

Because the Boomers were writing the software.


Damn. Hopefully it wasn't Skynet, because, remember...

The Terminator: In three years, Cyberdyne will become the largest supplier of military computer systems. All stealth bombers are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterwards, they fly with a perfect operational record. The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes online August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
1,706
As to the suitability of ADA, I'll not get into language wars; there are other forums for that, I'm sure. I will point out that this is more of a theology issue if you are not taking the limitations of your target hardware environment into consideration.
I've quite familiar with C, I've used it extensively. But there are entire classes of error that are possible in C, but not in Ada, which makes Ada the superior language for hard real time safety critical and mission critical roles. In fact the MISRA C guidelines, on which the JSF C++ Guidelines are based makes this precise point, at length. IIRC the first version of MISRA C I saw, which is far enough back it might have been the draft release, actually said "We'd really prefer you didn't do safety critical work in C, but if you must, then do it this way".
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
1,706

Because the Boomers were writing the software.
Seriously? You might want to consider forum demographics, and projects worked on, before trying to make points like that.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,738
Reaction score
2,716
The F22 was originally designed to take over the high end fighter role from the F15.
The F35 was then going to replace the F16.
But between 1991 and 200? the West had no high tech air forces to fight, only easily bombed folks.
The logic behind an F22/F35 mix returns if (as is now argued) we have high tech air forces who the US may have to go up against.
The situation is even worse for the USN. Its carrier air groups once boasted F14, A7 and A6 plus ASW, AEW and COD. Now it will just have F35, AEW and COD.
If we are arming for a new Cold War the US has potentially got to find:
F22 replacement
F111 replacement
A10 replacement
F14 replacement
A6 replacement
as someone once said, my brain hurts!
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
310
Reaction score
196
One question - I think an interesting question - is whether substantially overmatching enemies is a good idea. I understand the old Royal Navy doctrine of beating an alliance of the two next most powerful navies... but the problem is that the F-22's combination of low observability, next generation sensors, and super-cruise purportedly gave it enormous potential kill ratios (I think the exchange ratios quoted against existing American 4th gen fighters would represent that highest in history)!

This forces rivals to develop counters... new sensors to combat low observability and their own next generation fighters. I suppose that it is arguable that there is utility in producing designs that are so cutting edge ('bleeding edge') that the price means rivals have to choose not to contest such technology in order to stave off bankruptcy... but that also is a strategic victory which could be described as burning more money faster than other countries can afford - which obviously has costs. There is also the possibility of cheaper asymmetric solutions being found which mean that rivals don't have to spend as much.

So, I could definitely see an appeal in not forcing rivals to innovate - no F-22, no B-2, would mean less innovation of technologies to counter low-observable aircraft... less advancement of technology. A non-innovative solution could slow the development of new technologies that risk making the F-35 obsolete. The argument is essentially to not build Dreadnaught and instead invest in maintaining a fleet of enough refined pre-dreadnaughts to counter the two other largest navies.

Is overmatching wise?
A little late now... B2 is being retired and the 22 and 35 already exist.
Its bad doctrine to say if we don't build 5th gen then our adversaries won't. There is a reason why iron hasn't been dropped on an American in my lifetime. I for one think its bad policy to purposely field an air force to take on Venezuela and not china.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
770
Reaction score
129
If the USAF is really looking to put all of this digital engineering, E-series, rapid prototyping stuff to work why not start with a plan for new-build F-22s and work from there? It's gotta be somewhat easier from starting from scratch and we definitely could use more F-22s more than we need some ill-defined 4.5 gen F-16 replacement. If that is something we actually need why won't some F-16Vs do?
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
4,203
The main idea is not to have all the operational restrictions that comes with a VLO aircraft. With the use of modern engineering as you've listed, the promise of having something with better overall performances than a 4th gen aircraft designed 40 years ago are appealing.

Again, it's mainly because combat domain have spread to be global and permanent, and that potential adversaries have not all catch up that this is possible.

Something just short of a VLO could do the trick. See how the f-117 has resurfaced lately.
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
310
Reaction score
196
The main idea is not to have all the operational restrictions that comes with a VLO aircraft. With the use of modern engineering as you've listed, the promise of having something with better overall performances than a 4th gen aircraft designed 40 years ago are appealing.

Again, it's mainly because combat domain have spread to be global and permanent, and that potential adversaries have not all catch up that this is possible.

Something just short of a VLO could do the trick. See how the f-117 has resurfaced lately.
So basically if you listen to these arguments, this isn't a fighter at all. Its a ground attack aircraft with the ability to defend itself. Where have i heard that one before? Because if you're talking about endless wars you're not talking about countries with credible airpower. If you are talking about countries with air forces then YOU WANT the 35. So you are talking about 100s of billions for a supercrusing strike eagle. Why does a strike eagle need to supercruise? How is that useful when you have multiple flights of aircraft in the air for the pop-up cas situation? If you're talking about endless wars you're talking about small countries to begin with where you don't even need to supercruise for 500nm to a location. By the time an aircraft reaches supercruise its like to have traversed half the country just to get up to speed. Please don't waste my tax dollars on something just to say once again for the third time in a row, "Awe that's not what we should have built." please just give the EX new engines and call it a day. Focus money on pca or ngad or whatever.
 
Last edited:

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
4,203
@rooster : the Eagle is a massive twin engine and that has an impact on cost. Increasing performances is mainly on cost, availability and maintenance. Raw performances would benefits from being designed today with better engines, better aerodynamics and lighter structure. It would be an aircraft that ideally dominates most adversaries on a one on one situation while being less ressource intensive to produce. That way, if possible, there would be a path to secure the attrition war problem and the technology transfer dilemma that the US have with allies not ready to get on the F-35 program.

Air dominance is not the goal also as I understand it. For that, the aircraft will have to operate with the F-35 and other platforms such as ngad.
CAS in contested airspace would dictate stealth on a VLO basis. That aircraft would try to push that boundary without the surge on operational cost attached to VLO.
 
Last edited:

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
69
The main idea is not to have all the operational restrictions that comes with a VLO aircraft. With the use of modern engineering as you've listed, the promise of having something with better overall performances than a 4th gen aircraft designed 40 years ago are appealing.

Again, it's mainly because combat domain have spread to be global and permanent, and that potential adversaries have not all catch up that this is possible.

Something just short of a VLO could do the trick. See how the f-117 has resurfaced lately.
So basically if you listen to these arguments, this isn't a fighter at all. Its a ground attack aircraft with the ability to defend itself. Where have i heard that one before? Because if you're talking about endless wars you're not talking about countries with credible airpower. If you are talking about countries with air forces then YOU WANT the 35. So you are talking about 100s of billions for a supercrusing strike eagle. Why does a strike eagle need to supercruise? How is that useful when you have multiple flights of aircraft in the air for the pop-up cas situation? If you're talking about endless wars you're talking about small countries to begin with where The you don't even need to supercruise for 500nm to a location. By the time an aircraft reaches supercruise its like to have traversed half the country just to get up to speed. Please don't waste my tax dollars on something just to say once again for the third time in a row, "Awe that's not what we should have built." please just give the EX new engines and call it a day. Focus money on pca or ngad

@rooster : the Eagle is a massive twin engine and that has an impact on cost. Increasing performances is mainly on cost, availability and maintenance. Raw performances would benefits from being designed today with better engines, better aerodynamics and lighter structure. It would be an aircraft that ideally dominates most adversaries on a one on one situation while being less ressource intensive to produce. That way, if possible, there would be a path to secure the attrition war problem and the technology transfer dilemma that the US have with allies not ready to get on the F-35 program.

Air dominance is not the goal also as I understand it. For that, the aircraft will have to operate with the F-35 and other platforms such as ngad.
CAS in contested airspace would dictate stealth on a VLO basis. That aircraft would try to push that boundary without the surge on operational cost attached to VLO.

Good post. I think you nailed it.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,738
Reaction score
2,716
It is interesting to note how planes that started as pure (not a pound for air to ground) fighters end up moving mud (F16, F15, Typhoon).
McD legacy F4 and F18 managed to do both.
The A10 (A Douglas Skyraider for the jet age) keeps finding new work against stuff on the ground.
The F111 ended up being replaced by the F15 in the US, F18 in Oz and sort of by Tornado then Typhoon in UK.
All in all stuff does seem to happen.
And I didnt even mention all those A7s that bulked out US tacair into the 80s.
 

shedofdread

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
508
Reaction score
202
After reading the preceding posts, I'm left with this - does anyone have a complete set of drawings for the Canberra? Asking on behalf of a friend / CDS / senior procurement official (delete as appropriate).... ;)

All joking aside, if VLO isn't required and a low(er) cost to operate platform is needed to drop PGMs etc then something conceptually like a modern Canberra might have merit. You never know, you could even use for ISTAR and MP with some extra 'fiddling'.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
770
Reaction score
129
The main idea is not to have all the operational restrictions that comes with a VLO aircraft. With the use of modern engineering as you've listed, the promise of having something with better overall performances than a 4th gen aircraft designed 40 years ago are appealing.

Again, it's mainly because combat domain have spread to be global and permanent, and that potential adversaries have not all catch up that this is possible.

Something just short of a VLO could do the trick. See how the f-117 has resurfaced lately.
But how much better can you really do than the F-16V (or the so-called F-21) if you want a relatively cheap but capable multi-role 4.5 generation fighter without VLO? Do newer designs like the J-10, JF-17, or Gripen-E really offer much more? If you wanted super-maneuverability you could go with a new design that incorporates forward-swept wings and or TVC but modern missiles seemed to have reduced the value of those features. If you're looking for more of a fighter-bomber you could reconfigure the F-16 line to produce an updated variation of the F-16XL or F-16AT.

While I'm sure good use is being made of those old F-117s the stealth features on those were more maintenance intensive than on newer designs so I don't think you could really do "budget stealth" beyond the sort of treatment they already do to newer F-16s, F/A-18s, and the Eurocanards.

I think the only clean-sheet light fighter the USAF would be able to justify the development of would be something like the Boeing (Model 24) or Northrop Grumman (LCF) design studies. But those would definitely qualify as 5th generation with their stealth features. Otherwise it seems to me like some variation of the F-16 can do whatever is required. Or if you're willing to sacrifice some capability a combat capable version of the T-7.

Overall I'd have to argue that this requirement is firmly behind the TACAIR needs for -
1. Sorting out the issues that are still limiting the F-35.
2. New air-superiority fighters like the F-22 or a successor design.
3. Long range twin-engine supersonic interdiction aircraft. In other words that F-111 successor everyone wants at least until they look at the price tag.

Then there is the question of a new A-X which might be more useful for the sort of "secondary" conflicts this F-16 successor seems aimed at.

That's a pretty long list. My faith that any of this will be done right is pretty low, especially given the political climate.
 

Jrski

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 26, 2021
Messages
2
Reaction score
4
I would assume, engineering-wise, that the F-16 and F-15 are at least old hat structurally, aerodynamically, and in the databus/software area too. I’m willing to be corrected if they are not.

A well-run programme could produce a more efficient, maintainable, and survivable plane that slots right in to digital maintenance systems pioneered by the F-35. And a plane coming on line when the Viper and the Eagle are looking their age. That’s not a bad thing, and keeps American/Western defense diplomacy active too - not ceding ground to Russia or China.
The new F-15x is under development now. First plane has already been delivered to the Air Force...
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
310
Reaction score
196
Where is the cost study on adding another new type to the fleet will be cheaper than soldering on with the f35? How many hundreds of billions just in developing a new type, plus now having to maintain and train a new type? So we will have the f22, f15ex, f15e, f35, pca, and now fxx. I am all for American jobs but not wasting my American dollars. Does anyone even have an idea what Harris is going to do to the defense budget when she assumes the office apparently sooner rather than later?
 

skyblue

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
50
Reaction score
34
Does anyone even have an idea what Harris is going to do to the defense budget when she assumes the office apparently sooner rather than later?
What? There is absolutely zero indication outside of the whackadoodle Qanon world that Biden is stepping down.


Biden is actually pissing off progressives by intending to cut very little if any of the defense budget.

 

Wyvern

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
910
Reaction score
1,186

Better link:
Is this a real concept, because it looks like a fan-art, and it's too early in the program to have come up with a fully fledged design, imo.
 

Similar threads

Top