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

The two programs - at this point - seem to have serious flaws.

NGAD is willing replicating the error of the F-22. Make a small boutique fleet (200 airframes) that cost a fortune and is too fragile for any serious war.

CCA (which contractors rationally think is the more solid of the two programs) is based upon autonomy technology which has not been demonstrated in any serious way.

Neither, I think, proceed from a good understanding of the future operational environment. Both are still tied to major airbases (which are now little more than targets) and seem to be a bit beside the point. NGAD is to achieve air superiority in a war where successful strike missions are more important. CCA is to give mass-at-range but still tied to the large airbases. In a way, the 4th Gen, 5th Gen, 6th Gen mindset is producing a design cul-de-sac.

Nobody is thinking of reviving STOL strike aircraft (F-111, Tornado, SU-24), airplanes to operate from a wider range of air bases, roadways, and the like. Trade absolute performance for basing flexibility. Focus on a stand-off missiles delivery truck. That isn't necessarily a generational leap forward, but a response to the greatly changed operational environment.
 
You still need to protect those 'missile trucks' from long range look-down-shoot-down missiles... so contesting the airspace with your own interceptor is still attractive.

As for a STOL stand-off weapon delivering aircraft capable of nape-of-the-earth flight... does that really have to be manned?

That said, your argument is quite persuasive overall. I just think that sensor abilities (i.e. being able to spot a affordable strike aircraft at range) might make it vulnerable if air-superiority isn't contested, and also that RWR and terrain following sensor capabilities are already probably enough for a drone to effectively navigate at low altitude and detect/evade threats almost as well as a human.
 
The range question is tricky, because a look-down / shoot-down interceptor can get an airplane if it's within - say - 50-100nm of the launcher. But if everybody is carrying 300nm range missiles (or longer), the interceptor has to establish a far more challenging defended zone. Escort aircraft will help - but all they need to do is establish some sort of keep-out range, push back the interceptors long enough for the tactical-bombers to reach stand-off launch point.

As for unmanned, very good point. A STOL missile-truck doesn't exactly have to be manned at all. It's a rather simpler mission: take-off, fly to launch point, evade long-range threats, return. If autonomy cannot do that, it's hopeless for anything more advanced. It doesn't even need low-level flight at first - that's a nice to have for closer-in shots.
 
DrRansom said:
The two programs - at this point - seem to have serious flaws.

NGAD is willing replicating the error of the F-22. Make a small boutique fleet (200 airframes) that cost a fortune and is too fragile for any serious war.

CCA (which contractors rationally think is the more solid of the two programs) is based upon autonomy technology which has not been demonstrated in any serious way.

Neither, I think, proceed from a good understanding of the future operational environment. Both are still tied to major airbases (which are now little more than targets) and seem to be a bit beside the point. NGAD is to achieve air superiority in a war where successful strike missions are more important. CCA is to give mass-at-range but still tied to the large airbases. In a way, the 4th Gen, 5th Gen, 6th Gen mindset is producing a design cul-de-sac.

Nobody is thinking of reviving STOL strike aircraft (F-111, Tornado, SU-24), airplanes to operate from a wider range of air bases, roadways, and the like. Trade absolute performance for basing flexibility. Focus on a stand-off missiles delivery truck. That isn't necessarily a generational leap forward, but a response to the greatly changed operational environment.
Click to expand...
Nobody know about NGAD program so how you can say that a mistake ? Are you in the know ?
 
dark sidius said:
Nobody know about NGAD program so how you can say that a mistake ? Are you in the know ?
Click to expand...

If I did know - would I post here?

I'm working off two statements:
A. Somebody somewhere suggested a 200 airframe purchase
B. Suggestions of very long range and decently low observable airframe, which suggests a significant basing requirement. This comes from the repeated talk of a 6th Gen Design.

If NGAD is instead making a STOL airframe designed for dispersed basing on regional airfields in Asia, built for a dual-mode operation (Air Superiority and Cruise-Missile Carrier) and given a reduced set of requirements so the USAF can buy 600+ airframes, then yes I'd be wrong. I haven't seen the slightest hint of that however.
 
It seems like the manned NGAD is a large, long range bespoke aircraft that needs a full airbase (though it might have sufficient range to make Australia a useful fighter basing area). The CCAs on the other hand might well be STOVL. I’d love to see a slightly enlarged XQ-58 as an entry. We don’t know. But it also seems likely multiple designs of CCA from multiple companies are produced with a common software core, which seems like a great idea to me. Some might larger and more airbase dependent; others might RATO their way into the air. Given a solid AI program that knows how to behave across platforms, the CCA part of the program might easily evolve with the threat. AI might not be there yet, but implications of a lower cost aircraft that doesn’t need a pilot training program, especially across multiple UAV manufacturers, could have massive implications if it works. You cannot avoid the possibility that it would be absolutely game changing, given that anyone who has the technology is trying to achieve the same thing. Experiments to date make me think it is a workable objective by end of decade. We shall see.
 
AGS-1787 said:
Is there any indication of what type of performance leap they are trying to achieve? Full aspect stealth; maybe no tail fins, while maintaining high aoa maneuverability, drone control capability, electronic attack capability, super cruise, better climb performance than any current fighter; better range than f-22; top speed? I think the transition from f-4 to f-15 was about twice the performance capabilities; and the f-22 made the leap even further. Are they going to try to hit mach3?
Click to expand...
Unlikely. Going faster isn't that much of an improvement. Well, barring being able to cruise at Mach 1.8-2.2 for long distances.


DrRansom said:
If I did know - would I post here?

I'm working off two statements:
A. Somebody somewhere suggested a 200 airframe purchase
B. Suggestions of very long range and decently low observable airframe, which suggests a significant basing requirement. This comes from the repeated talk of a 6th Gen Design.

If NGAD is instead making a STOL airframe designed for dispersed basing on regional airfields in Asia, built for a dual-mode operation (Air Superiority and Cruise-Missile Carrier) and given a reduced set of requirements so the USAF can buy 600+ airframes, then yes I'd be wrong. I haven't seen the slightest hint of that however.
Click to expand...
The long range is coming from talk about "the Pacific", when US planes need to fly from Guam, Japan, Hawaii, or Alaska to get to the fight, because everything closer is within China's A2AD umbrella.

This leads me to suspect a 100klb aircraft for the USAF version, and a ~84klb aircraft for the USN due to catapult limits.

I really hope that the USAF buys more than 200 birds.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Unlikely. Going faster isn't that much of an improvement. Well, barring being able to cruise at Mach 1.8-2.2 for long distances.



The long range is coming from talk about "the Pacific", when US planes need to fly from Guam, Japan, Hawaii, or Alaska to get to the fight, because everything closer is within China's A2AD umbrella.

This leads me to suspect a 100klb aircraft for the USAF version, and a ~84klb aircraft for the USN due to catapult limits.

I really hope that the USAF buys more than 200 birds.
Click to expand...

NGAD might just manifest as a JSF technology inserted FB-22 with CCA for the actual attritable loss capacity tbf. Not as revolutionary as F-22 was compared to F-15, more like B-2 and B-21, perhaps. People seem to be reading a bit much into "6th generation" after all. A more producible, medium-range aircraft that meets current needs is probably all that 6th generation will end up being. The aircraft simply isn't as important as the manufacturing base that builds it at the moment.

It's also no secret that F-22's combat radius is a bit weedy nowadays and even F-35C is looking a bit skimpy in the South China Sea.
 
Kat Tsun said:
NGAD might just manifest as a JSF technology inserted FB-22 with CCA for the actual attritable loss capacity tbf. Not as revolutionary as F-22 was compared to F-15, more like B-2 and B-21, perhaps. People seem to be reading a bit much into "6th generation" after all. A more producible, medium-range aircraft that meets current needs is probably all that 6th generation will end up being. The aircraft simply isn't as important as the manufacturing base that builds it at the moment.

It's also no secret that F-22's combat radius is a bit weedy nowadays and even F-35C is looking a bit skimpy in the South China Sea.
Click to expand...
That's been mooted several times over the years.

To me, "6th generation fighter" means broadband stealth, long range, and being a drone quarterback as the defining characteristics.
 
NGAD range is a subject of mysticism. Who knows. The general feeling is it will be very long ranged and have all aspect stealth, at the expense of perhaps accelerating and turning. But I’d be shocked if it couldn’t supercruise like an F-22, and any comparisons between those two programs decades apart is pointless.
 
Does "decades apart" actually matter? F-35 isn't much younger than F-22 and its requirements go back to the 1980's anyway. NGAD was probably on the whiteboard around the time X-35 was flying.

Supercruise is somewhat deprecated in the face of orbital tracking of aircraft though. Cheap satellite surveillance wasn't a threat for F-22, and IRSTs didn't become highly capable until the late 1990's, so supercruise was viable when it was considered but is it still important now? Subsonic cruise, with a limited supersonic dash capability like F-35, seems a fair bet if NGAD turns out to be actually forward looking in that regard.
 
Scott Kenny said:
To me, "6th generation fighter" means broadband stealth, long range, and being a drone quarterback as the defining characteristics.
Click to expand...

Broadband stealth requires a large, draggy aircraft. Not what you want in a fighter. Having a very low signature at low frequencies generally isn’t worthwhile for anything but ISR or a bomber. For a fighter districting every part of the RF kill chain is not worth the effort.

In the 1990s the state of the art in signature reduction was -70dbsm. It would be reasonable to believe things have advanced since then. RCS ranges have been continuously upgraded to measure smaller and smaller signatures.

Shaping, not materials get you to these numbers. No material is physically able to absorb more than X dbsm of RF energy, and even then the material would be too thick/heavy for an aircraft.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Supercruise is somewhat deprecated in the face of orbital tracking of aircraft though. Cheap satellite surveillance wasn't a threat for F-22, and IRSTs didn't become highly capable until the late 1990's, so supercruise was viable when it was considered but is it still important now? Subsonic cruise, with a limited supersonic dash capability like F-35, seems a fair bet if NGAD turns out to be actually forward looking in that regard.
Click to expand...
Supersonic cruise means you cover 1000nmi in about 60 minutes, which gets you to your target sooner and lets you generate more sorties per day despite the longer trips.



quellish said:
Broadband stealth requires a large, draggy aircraft. Not what you want in a fighter. Having a very low signature at low frequencies generally isn’t worthwhile for anything but ISR or a bomber. For a fighter districting every part of the RF kill chain is not worth the effort.

In the 1990s the state of the art in signature reduction was -70dbsm. It would be reasonable to believe things have advanced since then. RCS ranges have been continuously upgraded to measure smaller and smaller signatures.

Shaping, not materials get you to these numbers. No material is physically able to absorb more than X dbsm of RF energy, and even then the material would be too thick/heavy for an aircraft.
Click to expand...
"Broadband stealth" may not be the right word then. I don't mean "invisible to long range radars", I mean "low thermal and targeting radar signatures."
 
Scott Kenny said:
Supersonic cruise means you cover 1000nmi in about 60 minutes, which gets you to your target sooner and lets you generate more sorties per day despite the longer trips.
Click to expand...

It also allows you to be easily tracked by fighter (or orbital) IRST and have weapons guided to you passively. The USN has a IRST capable of acquiring weapons grade tracks against supersonic targets for AMRAAM. It's not much a stretch to assume the PLAAF has something similar.

Being subsonic is a better bet for survivability. If that puts you out of range of targets, you just take the airbases you need to get closer. If that makes you too slow to catch targets, get faster missiles, to hit targets further away.

Making the aircraft supercruise in a world where air defense forces can passively acquire, track, and attack supersonic infrared signatures at significant ranges is kind of silly, unless you go for something extreme like SR-71. Even that might not be enough to evade modern air defense tbh.

quellish said:
Orbital tracking has no bearing on how fast you get to the target. Super cruise is not about being tracked or not.
Click to expand...

That just sounds like the Marines and Army will have to fight over airbases in the Pacific again tbh.

Or perhaps the Air Force will need a NGAD or F-35-sized hypersonic missile.
 
Last edited:
Kat Tsun said:
It also allows you to be easily tracked by fighter (or orbital) IRST and have weapons guided to you passively. The USN has a IRST capable of acquiring weapons grade tracks against supersonic targets for AMRAAM. It's not much a stretch to assume the PLAAF has something similar.
Click to expand...

No. Super cruise is supersonic cruise without afterburner. That means much lower IR signature from the exhaust. If you are trying to make some inference that supersonic means skin heating that can be tracked that is also not true.

The PLAAF put one of their primary RCS ranges in the middle of a busy city and designs their aircraft by committee. That’s right up there with hanging targets in mid air from cables. Assuming they are competent is a fools errand.
 
quellish said:
No. Super cruise is supersonic cruise without afterburner. That means much lower IR signature from the exhaust. If you are trying to make some inference that supersonic means skin heating that can be tracked that is also not true.

The PLAAF put one of their primary RCS ranges in the middle of a busy city and designs their aircraft by committee. That’s right up there with hanging targets in mid air from cables. Assuming they are competent is a fools errand.
Click to expand...
You assume your enemy is competent and work from there. Anything else is inviting nasty surprises.
 
Well, there is a lot of corruption.
Corruption is a form of stupidity that is not rightly associated with. Just like invertebrates and mammals are life forms.

Precautions doesn't involve sidelining objective analysis and their conclusions.
 
TomcatViP said:
Well, there is a lot of corruption.
Corruption is a form of stupidity that is not rightly associated with. Just like invertebrates and mammals are life forms.

Precautions doesn't involve sidelining objective analysis and their conclusions.
Click to expand...
I believe it was from The Mote in God's Eye, where the Military Intelligence officer says, "we go by what they are capable of, not (...)."
 
quellish said:
Assuming they are competent is a fools errand.
Click to expand...

If the enemy isn't competent, there's no reason to have a new aircraft when a perfectly suitable one already exists in JSF. Yet here we are?

Anyway I was more thinking of the European Union with the IRST comment.

Rafale and Typhoon are notable aircraft with infrared search and track that can spot targets similar to U.S. IRST. Presumably, they can get weapons grade tracks and do passive ranging, too. After all if the USN can do it, it's not that hard for another country like Germany or France to develop something similar, if they wanted to.

How many Chinese combat systems are based on French technology again?

No. Super cruise is supersonic cruise without afterburner. That means much lower IR signature from the exhaust. If you are trying to make some inference that supersonic means skin heating that can be tracked that is also not true.
Click to expand...

It's not an "inference", it's a direct claim by European manufacturers of systems like PIRATE. There was an article by Bill Sweetman talking about Skyward-G around 2016 or so, which is a Selex IRST which is used by the Gripen E, that mentioned it.

Whether it's true or not, who can say, but they claim it can track supersonic aircraft based on heating of the skin along the nose and leading edges with an aircraft traveling faster than 400 kts, implying that afterburner signature is less important now.

Supercruise seems rather obsolete in the face of systems like this, unless NGAD intends to incorporate some sort of active skin cooling system or maybe a form of thermal stealth, and even then if it is detrimental to the on-station time at subsonic speeds it may not be worth it. If you're worried about time critical targets you can just carry a faster missile to launch, or more heavily rely on a system that can operate further forward safely, like a submarine.
 
Last edited:
Kat Tsun said:
It's not an "inference", it's a direct claim by European manufacturers of systems like PIRATE. There was an article by Bill Sweetman talking about Skyward-G around 2016 or so, which is a Selex IRST which is used by the Gripen E, that mentioned it.

Whether it's true or not, who can say, but they claim it can track supersonic aircraft based on heating of the skin along the nose and leading edges with an aircraft traveling faster than 400 kts, implying that afterburner signature is less important now.
Click to expand...

It is true, but dependent on weather and atmospheric conditions. Radar is needed for all weather operations... hence, radar stealth will always be useful for attack at certain times, and a relatively high speed limits exposure to the enemy (e.g. move in, build up a sensor picture, fire if opportunity provides, retreat before an effective intercept can take place).

Even with air-breathing AAMs having increasingly tremendous ranges, they are still limited by the capabilities of their terminal seekers, so you probably actually do have to pull of an intercept.

A lot of the battlespace comes down to sensors identifying targets (and then being able to respond appropriately). That is more important than any one capability or even the more limited mission of air-superiority.
 
quellish said:
JSF is not an air superiority fighter. NGAD is not replacing JSF.
Click to expand...

Of course not, but to say that supercruise is very important, when the biggest threat in America's next assumed world war is going to be mobile missile launchers and IRBMs, is a bit silly.

It made sense when ATF was going to operate from a fighter base that was double digit miles away from the enemy's airbases, needed to defend its airbase first before attacking the enemy, and the expected threat was a supersonic fighter-bomber equipped attack regiment. If you expect the PLAAF or PLAN to gain the capacity to attack American fighter bases in the PTO with M1.2-1.8 cruising missiles from sub-250 nmi distances, then supercruise becomes important I suppose.

I could see F-22 being useful for Taiwan in all seriousness. It just about fits that description.

However, it seems detrimental in a war where range and loitering time is what will matter more than speed. Diminishing the need for tanker support by increasing on-station loiter time, reducing infrared signature from the friction heating of the skin, and being able to control drone aircraft that can act as eyes and ears, all seem more important elements.

Avimimus said:
It is true, but dependent on weather and atmospheric conditions. Radar is needed for all weather operations... hence, radar stealth will always be useful for attack at certain times, and a relatively high speed limits exposure to the enemy (e.g. move in, build up a sensor picture, fire if opportunity provides, retreat before an effective intercept can take place).

Even with air-breathing AAMs having increasingly tremendous ranges, they are still limited by the capabilities of their terminal seekers, so you probably actually do have to pull of an intercept.

A lot of the battlespace comes down to sensors identifying targets (and then being able to respond appropriately). That is more important than any one capability or even the more limited mission of air-superiority.
Click to expand...

This is all true.

It's just that IRST existing by itself, at the state it is in, means it is still regaining some element of a BVR capability of fighters against stealth aircraft. Supercruise isn't going to help keep the IR signature down, and if you can already gain viable tracks from BVR ranges by friction heating and single aperture passive ranging, then it might end up being detrimental.

It's a "nice to have" but not "necessary" thing for a PTO, where much of the flying is done over ocean and at long ranges, and if you can get the long range and on-station loiter done while retaining supercruise then it's fine. It likely won't be used in theater very often, but it's nice to have.
 
Last edited:
The U.S. is attempting to build satellites that can track a hypersonic missile. I don’t think it can be assumed that mildly supersonic targets can also be tracked, even assuming the Chinese have sufficient technology and launch cadence to mimic the U.S. system. Also you still have to realtime that data to you fighters for it to be of much value.

I would still want the capability to supercruise. It lowers transit times and imparts energy to weapons without reheating, and afterburners without a doubt are a big IR detection hazard. The more moderate skin heating and dry thrust signature is going to be detectable at shorter ranges.
 
I too would want supercruise as part of the NGAD/F/A-XX Josh_TN, it used to be that the only fighter that had it was the F-22 but now everyone is going to be using it for their Fifth Generation fighters. It would be a risk not to use it.
 
Josh_TN said:
The U.S. is attempting to build satellites that can track a hypersonic missile. I don’t think it can be assumed that mildly supersonic targets can also be tracked,
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure, given the USAF and USN seemed confident enough in tracking Tu-22M regiments with DSP for strategic warning. That said, this is mostly concerning tactical fighters being able to engage a VLO target at BVR ranges, and supercruise resulting in a higher signature.

Josh_TN said:
even assuming the Chinese have sufficient technology and launch cadence to mimic the U.S. system.
Click to expand...

Assuming anything less is a bit silly, and there's no serious harm in overestimating the capabilities of an opponent, either.

Josh_TN said:
Also you still have to realtime that data to you fighters for it to be of much value.
Click to expand...

I don't think orbital tracking is a serious threat in the near term, but being tracked by PIRATE or some similar system, and attacked from BVR ranges completely passively is going to be a headache. That's going to throw a wrench in mission planning, for one thing, since it's much harder to estimate the relative capacities of IRST compared to radar, and it's going to give aircrews less options for handling threats.

Josh_TN said:
I would still want the capability to supercruise. It lowers transit times and imparts energy to weapons without reheating, and afterburners without a doubt are a big IR detection hazard. The more moderate skin heating and dry thrust signature is going to be detectable at shorter ranges.
Click to expand...

Supercruise isn't bad, but it isn't useful within the context of a Pacific War, either.

Selex says they can use skin heating alone, above 300 kts, as a detection measure with Skyward-G. PIRATE is claimed to be able to detect targets at 90 km, and provide VID at 40 km, and presumably Skyward-G is more capable than this. Manufacturer claims aside, IRSTs have generally improved enough that they are a viable sensor for counter-VLO in the air defense role, which is going to be the real issue.


Gripen Sensors Claim Counter-Stealth Performance | Aviation Week Network

Will be able to detect low-radar-cross-section targets, company claims
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Supercruising won't help with this problem of "passive BVR engagement by air defense fighters", but maybe some sort of active infrared stealth or thermoelectric skin could do it, though that's probably for "7th generation" fighters to figure out.

ACE will probably give NGAD good loiter time with a supercruise capability on top of that, which is rather unlike F119, at least.
 
Kat Tsun said:
I'm not so sure, given the USAF and USN seemed confident enough in tracking Tu-22M regiments with DSP for strategic warning. That said, this is mostly concerning tactical fighters being able to engage a VLO target at BVR ranges, and supercruise resulting in a higher signature.
Click to expand...

I'd not heard of that...do you have a source?

Kat Tsun said:
Assuming anything less is a bit silly, and there's no serious harm in overestimating the capabilities of an opponent, either.
Click to expand...

If your assumption fundamentally impacts the performance of a design, then yes I think there can be harm in overestimating.

Kat Tsun said:
I don't think orbital tracking is a serious threat in the near term, but being tracked by PIRATE or some similar system, and attacked from BVR ranges completely passively is going to be a headache. That's going to throw a wrench in mission planning, for one thing, since it's much harder to estimate the relative capacities of IRST compared to radar, and it's going to give aircrews less options for handling threats.
Click to expand...

Supercruising will increase an aircraft's IR signature. But it will also extend the range of the aircraft's weapons and allow it to leave the envelope of opponent weapons faster. Given the adaptive engine designs that GE and PW are working on, it seems likely the USAF can have its cake and eat it too - it can probably have a fuel efficient engine that allows for supercruise. I don't see why you would want to delete the option, even if it might not be useful in every single tactical situation. Presumable you would delete the afterburner as well?



Kat Tsun said:
Selex says they can use skin heating alone, above 300 kts, as a detection measure with Skyward-G. PIRATE is claimed to be able to detect targets at 90 km, and provide VID at 40 km, and presumably Skyward-G is more capable than this. Manufacturer claims aside, IRSTs have generally improved enough that they are a viable sensor for counter-VLO in the air defense role, which is going to be the real issue.
Click to expand...

The ranges are still much shorter than for a radar search against a 4th generation aircraft. IRST is also somewhat weather dependent.

Kat Tsun said:
Supercruise isn't bad, but it isn't useful within the context of a Pacific War, either.
Click to expand...

We will agree to disagree. Also, if not in the Pacific, then where?
 
Josh_TN said:
I'd not heard of that...do you have a source?
Click to expand...

Slow Walker

From the Sea to the Stars

From the Sea to the Stars: A Chronicle of the U.S. Navy's Space and Space-related Activities, 1944-2009 Sponsored by Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (C3I and Space) Dr Gary A. Federici Edited by The Applied Research Laboratory The Pennsylvania State University Revised and updated edition...
www.history.navy.mil www.history.navy.mil
 
Kat Tsun said:
I'm not so sure, given the USAF and USN seemed confident enough in tracking Tu-22M regiments with DSP for strategic warning.
Click to expand...

They were not. DSP was not good enough to track cruise missile carriers, which is why so much was invested in other solutions like TEAL RUBY, OTH, SBR, TEAL CAMEO, TEAL RAIN, QUARTZ and others.
 
quellish said:
They were not. DSP was not good enough to track cruise missile carriers, which is why so much was invested in other solutions like TEAL RUBY, OTH, SBR, TEAL CAMEO, TEAL RAIN, QUARTZ and others.
Click to expand...
Most of these are US Airforce Projects, Teal Ruby pre-dated Slow Walker (although it post-dates the DSP satellites used by Slow Walker). Slow Walker seems to have been successful, it actually entered service unlike the above, and the way in which it came about also suggested it worked. The US Air Force after all was unlikely to inform the US Navy that they could track Soviet Bombers and cooperate with them if they were in fact unable to track said bombers.
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Most of these are US Airforce Projects, Teal Ruby pre-dated Slow Walker (although it post-dates the DSP satellites used by Slow Walker). Slow Walker seems to have been successful, it actually entered service unlike the above, and the way in which it came about also suggested it worked. The US Air Force after all was unlikely to inform the US Navy that they could track Soviet Bombers and cooperate with them if they were in fact unable to track said bombers.
Click to expand...

Did it require a raid of a specific size or the aircraft to use afterburners to be detected?
 
Scott Kenny said:
The long range is coming from talk about "the Pacific", when US planes need to fly from Guam, Japan, Hawaii, or Alaska to get to the fight, because everything closer is within China's A2AD umbrella.

This leads me to suspect a 100klb aircraft for the USAF version, and a ~84klb aircraft for the USN due to catapult limits.

I really hope that the USAF buys more than 200 birds.
Click to expand...

My idea is that pursing ever longer ranges to escape the A2AD umbrella is a losing proposition. New designs have to be developed to operate within the A2AD umbrella and that means some form of STOL and large airbase independence. This problem has been looked at before - mainly in Cold War 1970s onward.

Dig up the old NATO studies that lead to the F-111, Tornado IDS, and late Cold-War design studies. See what advances in aerodynamics, engines, compressors brings. a

The approach to pursue extreme long ranges (which is where NGAD seems to be going) will lead to excessively large and excessively expensive aircraft - and it entirely surrenders everything within range.

PS. Where did the idea of RATO come from? It was considered in the past and entirely abandoned - even if the aircraft was just carrying nuclear weapons and, presumably, didn't need a large bomb-load.
 
DrRansom said:
My idea is that pursing ever longer ranges to escape the A2AD umbrella is a losing proposition. New designs have to be developed to operate within the A2AD umbrella and that means some form of STOL and large airbase independence. This problem has been looked at before - mainly in Cold War 1970s onward.

Dig up the old NATO studies that lead to the F-111, Tornado IDS, and late Cold-War design studies. See what advances in aerodynamics, engines, compressors brings. a

The approach to pursue extreme long ranges (which is where NGAD seems to be going) will lead to excessively large and excessively expensive aircraft - and it entirely surrenders everything within range.

PS. Where did the idea of RATO come from? It was considered in the past and entirely abandoned - even if the aircraft was just carrying nuclear weapons and, presumably, didn't need a large bomb-load.
Click to expand...
We have STOVL strike fighters, they're called F-35Bs. USMC has what, a couple hundred?
 
STOL combat aircraft wasn't necessarily for large airbase independence but increasingly for operating from partially repaired runways, taxiways that would be shorter. Being able to take off and land the aircraft at another base is all very fine, but you then also have to move fuel, armaments, armourers, lubricants, maintainers etc. Which adds up to a massive logisitics problem. Its less effort to fill in the holes faster at your main base.

But the above is from pre guided weapons era when it was easiest to hit the runway, rather than attack aircraft on the ground, POL, ammo dumps etc.

Even with a STOL aircraft, the ranges required are still very large when you measure them on the map
 
STOL is fine for home defense. But going expeditionary requires a fully structured force as mentioned above.
Hence the USMC.
What other Corp would be able to sustain STOL operations abroad for a long time? Not much aside of a Navy. And many have made the choice of having bigger aircraft carrier for increased flexibility.

So, sadly, there isn't much to re-invent. The script is already on screens.
 
This discussion is getting beyond the topic at hand - but I don't think the F-35B is a good replacement for the mission.

The way I view it, every airbase in the Pacific Rim is under some degree of missile attack risk (obviously insane at Kadena and declining to the West Coast). Running-away to safe-spaces will see the USAF run out of the Pacific Theater entirely. This means each airbase has to be resilient to continuous missile attack and the aircraft have to be designed to support that requirement. Which brings back STOL-esque (Variable-Wing or SAAB Viggen/Gripen) requirements for point-defense interceptors and medium range missile-carrying bombers.

Right now, neither NGAD nor CCA seem to have that in-mind. However, CCA is starting to make some noises about STOL capability.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom