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

[Sundog]

It's just concept art from the "Need for Speed" lecture at the AIAA conference that Flateric linked to up thread.

 

[FighterJock]

It's just concept art from the "Need for Speed" lecture at the AIAA conference that Flateric linked to up thread.

Thanks Sundog. Shame that though.

 

[bobbymike]

Defining the Next Air Superiority Platform

​—John A. Tirpak

The next air superiority platform—the Penetrating Counter Air aircraft—is “not a fighter,” insists the Air Force officer whose team came up with the concept, but will rather be a key flying sensor platform with lots of weapons and long range that will enable USAF’s existing fighters.

Brig. Gen. Alex Grynkewich, Deputy Director for Global Operations on the Joint Staff, who just a year ago headed up USAF’s enterprise capability collaboration team effort on Next-Generation Air Dominance, speaking at a joint Mitchell Institute/“War on the Rocks” symposium said the ECCT deliberately avoided using terms like “fighter” or “F-X” in its study of what’s needed to achieve air superiority in 2030, not wanting to prejudice the outcome.

This new aircraft is needed to penetrate enemy air defenses and keep all the other fighters relevant, he said, calling it mainly a sensor platform but one that could “finish” enemy targets “as long as it’s in the area anyway.”

Col. Tom Coglitore, who succeeded Grynkewich and is now the lead for Air Superiority 2030 concept development, said the PCA concept is six months into an 18-month analysis of alternatives that will refine the platform’s attributes, under the budgetary program element “Next Generation Air dominance.” He added that the PCA’s missions will include air escort, fighter sweep, suppression of enemy air defenses, and defensive counter-air. It fills a “gap” identified in the late 2020s that neither the F-22 nor F-35 can adequately fill, Coglitore said, and it will “enable the joint force” as well.

Grynkewich said the long range is necessary to both permit basing beyond the range of enemy ballistic or cruise missiles, and to allow “persistence” in the target area.

The sensors onboard will also provide coordinates for standoff weapons. The sensors and the ability to target for standoff weapons are “the key pieces” of what the PCA is all about, Grynkewich asserted. While there may be some overlap with the Strategic Capabilities Office “arsenal plane” concept, they’re not the same and will likely fulfill different roles, he added.

Jeff Saling, who was the analysis lead for Air Superiority 2030, said it’s not a certainty the PCA will have directed energy weapons. DE has “a lot of promise” due to its potential “deep magazine” of shots, but Saling said the program wouldn’t be held up to wait for them. DE weapons would “have to deliver” to earn their way on the platform, and will be considered not only for their combat utility but in the context of logistics support, as well.

“I want directed energy as soon as I can get it and as soon as it works,” Grynkewich summed up. He also said future efforts at advancing air superiority will have to be a series of very rapid incremental improvements, because without them, “you’ll fall behind.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two AETDs with 100k total thrust plus many, many next generation AAMs is a good start.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Looks like another FCS type fiasco in the making, unfortunately.

 

[sublight_]

The next air superiority platform—the Penetrating Counter Air aircraft—is “not a fighter,” insists the Air Force officer whose team came up with the concept

Well that didn't take long.....

 

[Airplane]

I am imagining a spark-vark with some kind of limited A2A ability. It certainly sounds like it's going to be a larger 2-person EW aircraft like an EF-111.

 

[sferrin]

Looks like another FCS type fiasco in the making, unfortunately.

How so? They're looking at what the F-22 and F-35 are doing now, how they're changing air combat, and designing the next generation to maximize its potential. When radar came along, the way air wars were waged changed, and fighters were subsequently designed to take advantage of it.

 

[sferrin]

The next air superiority platform—the Penetrating Counter Air aircraft—is “not a fighter,” insists the Air Force officer whose team came up with the concept

Well that didn't take long.....

Didn't take long for what? If something like a stealthy F-108 with deep magazines will do the job better, why not use it? One would significantly limit themselves if they allowed themselves to be constrained by a, "must do Cobra at airshows" mentality.

 

[Triton]

Defining the Next Air Superiority Platform

​—John A. Tirpak

The next air superiority platform—the Penetrating Counter Air aircraft—is “not a fighter,” insists the Air Force officer whose team came up with the concept, but will rather be a key flying sensor platform with lots of weapons and long range that will enable USAF’s existing fighters.

Brig. Gen. Alex Grynkewich, Deputy Director for Global Operations on the Joint Staff, who just a year ago headed up USAF’s enterprise capability collaboration team effort on Next-Generation Air Dominance, speaking at a joint Mitchell Institute/“War on the Rocks” symposium said the ECCT deliberately avoided using terms like “fighter” or “F-X” in its study of what’s needed to achieve air superiority in 2030, not wanting to prejudice the outcome.

This new aircraft is needed to penetrate enemy air defenses and keep all the other fighters relevant, he said, calling it mainly a sensor platform but one that could “finish” enemy targets “as long as it’s in the area anyway.”

Col. Tom Coglitore, who succeeded Grynkewich and is now the lead for Air Superiority 2030 concept development, said the PCA concept is six months into an 18-month analysis of alternatives that will refine the platform’s attributes, under the budgetary program element “Next Generation Air dominance.” He added that the PCA’s missions will include air escort, fighter sweep, suppression of enemy air defenses, and defensive counter-air. It fills a “gap” identified in the late 2020s that neither the F-22 nor F-35 can adequately fill, Coglitore said, and it will “enable the joint force” as well.

Grynkewich said the long range is necessary to both permit basing beyond the range of enemy ballistic or cruise missiles, and to allow “persistence” in the target area.

The sensors onboard will also provide coordinates for standoff weapons. The sensors and the ability to target for standoff weapons are “the key pieces” of what the PCA is all about, Grynkewich asserted. While there may be some overlap with the Strategic Capabilities Office “arsenal plane” concept, they’re not the same and will likely fulfill different roles, he added.

Jeff Saling, who was the analysis lead for Air Superiority 2030, said it’s not a certainty the PCA will have directed energy weapons. DE has “a lot of promise” due to its potential “deep magazine” of shots, but Saling said the program wouldn’t be held up to wait for them. DE weapons would “have to deliver” to earn their way on the platform, and will be considered not only for their combat utility but in the context of logistics support, as well.

“I want directed energy as soon as I can get it and as soon as it works,” Grynkewich summed up. He also said future efforts at advancing air superiority will have to be a series of very rapid incremental improvements, because without them, “you’ll fall behind.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two AETDs with 100k total thrust plus many, many next generation AAMs is a good start.

Source:
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/July%202017/Defining-the-Next-Air-Superiority-Platform.aspx

 

[Triton]

The next air superiority platform—the Penetrating Counter Air aircraft—is “not a fighter,” insists the Air Force officer whose team came up with the concept

Well that didn't take long.....

Didn't take long for what? If something like a stealthy F-108 with deep magazines will do the job better, why not use it? One would significantly limit themselves if they allowed themselves to be constrained by a, "must do Cobra at airshows" mentality.

The supermanuevable fighter is obsolete in an era of standoff weapons, BVR air-to-air missiles, low-cost attritable drones, and networked sensors and weapon systems in the battlespace. Why invite comparisons between Penetrating Counter-Air and the F-22, T-50, J-20, or any other manned fighter? If you have to be up-close and personal, send in a cheap drone or smart weapon.

 

[sferrin]

The next air superiority platform—the Penetrating Counter Air aircraft—is “not a fighter,” insists the Air Force officer whose team came up with the concept

Well that didn't take long.....

Didn't take long for what? If something like a stealthy F-108 with deep magazines will do the job better, why not use it? One would significantly limit themselves if they allowed themselves to be constrained by a, "must do Cobra at airshows" mentality.

The supermanuevable fighter is obsolete in an era of standoff weapons, BVR air-to-air missiles, low-cost attritable drones, and networked sensors and weapon systems in the battlespace. Why invite comparisons between Penetrating Counter-Air and the F-22, T-50, J-20, or any other manned fighter? If you have to be up-close and personal, send in a cheap drone or smart weapon.

It's still going need speed, range, altitude, payload, and sensors. A B-21 with missiles won't cut it.

 

[sublight_]

It's still going need speed, range, altitude, payload, and sensors. A B-21 with missiles won't cut it.

Speed is now out. Power projection through extended range is now in......

 

[Void]

How so? They're looking at what the F-22 and F-35 are doing now, how they're changing air combat, and designing the next generation to maximize its potential. When radar came along, the way air wars were waged changed, and fighters were subsequently designed to take advantage of it.

The way they describe it this teams vision places too much emphasis on enabling other platforms and not enough on the aircraft's own performance destroying other aircraft. It sounds network-centric, and network-centric design is a mistake that introduces electronic vulnerabilities faster than it eliminates physical vulnerabilities. Whatever the best way to shoot down planes is (and it may well turn out to be a missile truck of some kind) in the future, destroying other planes should remain the primary focus of the design. Not enabling other things to destroy planes. There is no guarantee that whatever it is supposed to "enable" will actually be available or effective especially if it depends on coordination through a vulnerable communication network.

 

[sferrin]

How so? They're looking at what the F-22 and F-35 are doing now, how they're changing air combat, and designing the next generation to maximize its potential. When radar came along, the way air wars were waged changed, and fighters were subsequently designed to take advantage of it.

The way they describe it this teams vision places too much emphasis on enabling other platforms and not enough on the aircraft's own performance destroying other aircraft. It sounds network-centric, and network-centric design is a mistake that introduces electronic vulnerabilities faster than it eliminates physical vulnerabilities. Whatever the best way to shoot down planes is (and it may well turn out to be a missile truck of some kind) in the future, destroying other planes should remain the primary focus of the design. Not enabling other things to destroy planes. There is no guarantee that whatever it is supposed to "enable" will actually be available or effective especially if it depends on coordination through a vulnerable communication network.

Yeah, being overly network dependent gives me the heebs. It should be able to roam around with a significant ability in it's own right. If it lifts the ability of others, like the F-22 and F-35 do, great, but it shouldn't stop being a deadly asset if (when) the network is compromised.

 

[sferrin]

It's still going need speed, range, altitude, payload, and sensors. A B-21 with missiles won't cut it.

Speed is now out. Power projection through extended range is now in......

Well that will certainly be useful in the Pacific. <facepalm> So I guess they spent the last couple decades developing the next generation of fighter engines for nothing. <double facepalm> Given there is no new AAM likely to enter service in the US in the next 20 years, leaving them stuck with AIM-120. . .well, I'm all outta facepalms.

 

[Airplane]

How so? They're looking at what the F-22 and F-35 are doing now, how they're changing air combat, and designing the next generation to maximize its potential. When radar came along, the way air wars were waged changed, and fighters were subsequently designed to take advantage of it.

The way they describe it this teams vision places too much emphasis on enabling other platforms and not enough on the aircraft's own performance destroying other aircraft. It sounds network-centric, and network-centric design is a mistake that introduces electronic vulnerabilities faster than it eliminates physical vulnerabilities. Whatever the best way to shoot down planes is (and it may well turn out to be a missile truck of some kind) in the future, destroying other planes should remain the primary focus of the design. Not enabling other things to destroy planes. There is no guarantee that whatever it is supposed to "enable" will actually be available or effective especially if it depends on coordination through a vulnerable communication network.

Yeah, being overly network dependent gives me the heebs. It should be able to roam around with a significant ability in it's own right. If it lifts the ability of others, like the F-22 and F-35 do, great, but it shouldn't stop being a deadly asset if (when) the network is compromised.

If it's a sensor node like -35 and has AAMs, then it will be deadly on it's own.

All the speculation about a very vague PR release..... I'm sure it will be more maneuverable than an -104, and have a cruise speed on par with the -22. With LO, DEW, and AAMs it will be very deadly on it's own.

 

[Grey Havoc]

We can always hope.

 

[Triton]

How so? They're looking at what the F-22 and F-35 are doing now, how they're changing air combat, and designing the next generation to maximize its potential. When radar came along, the way air wars were waged changed, and fighters were subsequently designed to take advantage of it.

The way they describe it this teams vision places too much emphasis on enabling other platforms and not enough on the aircraft's own performance destroying other aircraft. It sounds network-centric, and network-centric design is a mistake that introduces electronic vulnerabilities faster than it eliminates physical vulnerabilities. Whatever the best way to shoot down planes is (and it may well turn out to be a missile truck of some kind) in the future, destroying other planes should remain the primary focus of the design. Not enabling other things to destroy planes. There is no guarantee that whatever it is supposed to "enable" will actually be available or effective especially if it depends on coordination through a vulnerable communication network.

Remember that the PCA concept is "six months into an 18-month analysis of alternatives that will refine the platform's attributes." I believe it is too early to criticize the PCA concept and claim that 'this teams vision places too much emphasis on enabling other platforms and not enough on the aircraft's own performance destroying other aircraft." I presume that the United States Air Force is reviewing multiple configurations of the PCA.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Given there is no new AAM likely to enter service in the US in the next 20 years, leaving them stuck with AIM-120. . .

I hope this isn't true, even now the AIM-120 is getting a bit long in the tooth.

 

[Triton]

It's still going need speed, range, altitude, payload, and sensors. A B-21 with missiles won't cut it.

Speed is now out. Power projection through extended range is now in......

Well that will certainly be useful in the Pacific. <facepalm> So I guess they spent the last couple decades developing the next generation of fighter engines for nothing. <double facepalm> Given there is no new AAM likely to enter service in the US in the next 20 years, leaving them stuck with AIM-120. . .well, I'm all outta facepalms.

Really? When did the United States Air Force cancel the Adaptive Engine Transition Programme (AETP) contracts with GE and Pratt & Whitney to develop adaptive cycle engines? You act as though PCA will be powered by a subsonic engine.

 

[sferrin]

It's still going need speed, range, altitude, payload, and sensors. A B-21 with missiles won't cut it.

Speed is now out. Power projection through extended range is now in......

Well that will certainly be useful in the Pacific. <facepalm> So I guess they spent the last couple decades developing the next generation of fighter engines for nothing. <double facepalm> Given there is no new AAM likely to enter service in the US in the next 20 years, leaving them stuck with AIM-120. . .well, I'm all outta facepalms.

Really? When did the United States Air Force cancel the Adaptive Engine Transition Programme (AETP) contracts with GE and Pratt & Whitney to develop adaptive cycle engines? You act as though PCA will be powered by a subsonic engine.

Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?

 

[Triton]

Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?

Where does the article state that Penetrating Counter-Air is a subsonic aircraft?

 

[dark sidius]

AETP engine program will go directly in the body of the PCA, PCA subsonic ? For what it is known the supercruise speed will be an attribute of the PCA. Don't you think the graphic of Rob Weiss " need for speed" is a PCA concept ?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Leave off the politics please.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?

Some studies in the 1980s showed doing this gives an aircraft that will beat, say, an F-16 in close combat. As much thrust but less structure weight = winning in a subsonic knife fight. I doubt PCA is taking that approach though.

 

[sferrin]

Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?

Some studies in the 1980s showed doing this gives an aircraft that will beat, say, an F-16 in close combat. As much thrust but less structure weight = winning in a subsonic knife fight. I doubt PCA is taking that approach though.

I sure hope not if they intend to be at all useful over the Pacific. Speed will be more important than it's ever been.

 

[sferrin]

Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?

Where does the article state that Penetrating Counter-Air is a subsonic aircraft?

From "Void's" post, "Speed is now out. Power projection through extended range is now in......"

Presumably he got the information from somewhere.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?

Some studies in the 1980s showed doing this gives an aircraft that will beat, say, an F-16 in close combat. As much thrust but less structure weight = winning in a subsonic knife fight. I doubt PCA is taking that approach though.

I sure hope not if they intend to be at all useful over the Pacific. Speed will be more important than it's ever been.

Well, the same studies showed that the subsonic plane would fly further too, as it could have a higher aspect ratio, thicker wing. Range matters over the pacific. But I can't see fighter pilots voting for a subsonic fighter, whatever the supposed benefits.

 

[sferrin]

Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?

Some studies in the 1980s showed doing this gives an aircraft that will beat, say, an F-16 in close combat. As much thrust but less structure weight = winning in a subsonic knife fight. I doubt PCA is taking that approach though.

I sure hope not if they intend to be at all useful over the Pacific. Speed will be more important than it's ever been.

Well, the same studies showed that the subsonic plane would fly further too, as it could have a higher aspect ratio, thicker wing. Range matters over the pacific. But I can't see fighter pilots voting for a subsonic fighter, whatever the supposed benefits.

A subsonic aircraft would be of limited use if it can't get to where you need it in time. Unless they plan on having numerous aircraft on 24/7 orbits like AWACS, that's going to be a problem.

 

[Airplane]

Why on earth would a subsonic aircraft use afterburning fighter engines?

Some studies in the 1980s showed doing this gives an aircraft that will beat, say, an F-16 in close combat. As much thrust but less structure weight = winning in a subsonic knife fight. I doubt PCA is taking that approach though.

I sure hope not if they intend to be at all useful over the Pacific. Speed will be more important than it's ever been.

Well, the same studies showed that the subsonic plane would fly further too, as it could have a higher aspect ratio, thicker wing. Range matters over the pacific. But I can't see fighter pilots voting for a subsonic fighter, whatever the supposed benefits.

A subsonic aircraft would be of limited use if it can't get to where you need it in time. Unless they plan on having numerous aircraft on 24/7 orbits like AWACS, that's going to be a problem.

When was the last time the USAF fielded a subsonic aircraft whose mission included downing other aircraft, including fighters? There is the answer to this whole speed issue.... It will be supersonic. If it isn't then they may as well just build 400 B-21s and fill them to the brim with AAMs. But that isn't what is happening....

 

[sferrin]

Great. So what's the source of Void's "speed is out" comment I wonder? ???

 

[Airplane]

Great. So what's the source of Void's "speed is out" comment I wonder? ???

I would speed was out when it came to the JSF, and it isn't a subsonic A-4/6/7.

There is no reason for it not to be supersonic unless it's a flying Dorito like a Sneaky Pete. The reason the -35 isn't faster is because they had to cram so much into a small/short/stubby package size and it got fat around the waist. Is there a reason for 6th gen to be kept artificially small to fit onboard the CVNs?

For example, if it's maximum speed is it's cruise speed and is M1.8, I would say that speed wasn't that important.

 

[NeilChapman]

Speed is the money question. Deciding whether the platform is sub or supersonic is "the" question. Without a stealthy tanking option the range requirements are brutal.

I predicate my thoughts on what might be an incorrect set of assumptions.

In a projected near-peer fight in 2025, the US will not want to rely on satellites or close-in tankers. Day 1 through X, F-22's clear the sky for B-2's with other platforms plugged in as necessary. B-2's will be coming from the US, Guam, DG or perhaps some intermediate Pacific bases. In 2025, there will also be some quantity of F-35's available to assist but still limited by range. By 2030-2035, B-21 will be available in quantity to assist B-2's.

In that 2030-2035 fight, considering A2/AD, is a supersonic PCA required to protect B-2's and B-21's? If you want a supersonic, stealthy, F-22 like PCA with a 3-5,000 nmi range you're going to get serious sticker shock.

My guess is that they've done the "back of the napkin" calculations. A supersonic PCA might require

Gross weight 80-115,000 lb - range and payload
Speed Mach 2+
Ceiling >60,000 ft - range and tactics
Range 3-5k nmi - getting in and out of A2/AD space

Basically a "stretched FB-111 sized" F-22.

If B-21 is $540M and new F-22's are $200M+, this jet will be $250M+ in 2017 dollars without dev costs. And the USAF knows they won't likely get 700 so there won't be any cost reduction through quantity. I also don't see many countries wanting to pay for this capability. Perhaps the UK, Japan, Australia and maybe Korea would buy a few. They really want to come up with an alternative through tech and tactics by 2020/25.

Personally, I'd want to find a way to use tech and tactics to modify the B-21. Approving changes and EMD on an existing, approved, EMP protected airframe that has already or is preparing to go through OT&E is going to be significantly more cost effective if it can be proven to provide the lethality required. There would also be cost management through work force production efficiencies and increased airframe quantities - much as we've seen on Virginia-class subs.

So my question is...

Based on what we're guessing about B-21, how could it be modified to meet the PCA requirement? I'm expecting that PCA would require

1. Dry AETD engine tech to power NGJ integration.
2. Swarming drone tech to assist in diversions or destruction of enemy air defense systems.
3. Additional sensor fusion tech that wasn't able to be integrated in original B-21 EMD phase.
4. Directed Energy tech, if matured.

Any others possibilities?

 

[Sundog]

Actually, most of what Neils post and SFerrin said is on the money. The PCA will be able to fly efficiently, for a fighter, at subsonic and supersonic speeds due to it's variable cycle engines. It will be a large aircraft, as we already know it's going to be a twin engine aircraft and we also know that the F-35 is supposed to get an upgrade using one of it's engines. Meaning it is going to be a 80000 lbs (+10000 lbs) aircraft, assuming it's near the same take off thrust to weight ratio as the F-22 and has a minimum of a .25 fuel fraction.

For a long range stand-off and loiter missileer, I can see the B-21 being used in a swing role for that mission. I don't see the PCA/B-21 as either/or with regard to the Pacific Theater, but as two systems that will be well integrated to support each other, along with other nodes in the defense network provided by the F-35 and other assets. Of course, the B-21 would need a long range A2A missile for such a role, which makes me wonder what we have in the Black World regarding such a program.

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/americas-air-superiority-crisis/

When the Cold War ended, the U.S. had a force structure of 3,212 fighters capable of air-to-air combat. However, the 1990s saw this number almost halved to 1,814 F-15s and F-16s. Today, the service possesses just under 1,000 aircraft capable of air-to-air combat — F-15s, , F-22s, and F-35s

:'(

And this:

The Air Force already has a big hole in its capabilities for the future: it needs what it is calling Penetrating Counter Air, a very fast, long-range, sensor-loaded and furiously lethal aircraft.

Could you also start an article "The Army has a big hole in its capabilities for the future" or "The Navy" or "The Marines"

The 90's procurement holidays and the requirement to fund wars from 2001 to today has left us needing at least an extra $100B/annum for modernization. I doubt we will ever catch up.

 

[sublight_]

I don't think AETD is going to be the miracle everybody is assuming it is. In the Air Forces own estimates, it is projected to take the F-35 fuel burn from 593 gallons an hour to 474 an hour, flying Mach .75 @ 40k feet. Compare that to something like Global Hawk with 77 gallons an hour, Mach .6 @ 60k feet.

It just isn't going to be economically feasible to build a big fast gas guzzling screamer to perform air dominance with microscopic loiter times and short range, when you can send drones in there from longer distances with no tanker support that can loiter all day long.

Oh and seriously, good luck with VLO and Mach 2 speeds. That is definitely not going to happen.

 

[sferrin]

t just isn't going to be economically feasible to build a big fast gas guzzling screamer to perform air dominance with microscopic loiter times and short range, when you can send drones in there from longer distances with no tanker support that can loiter all day long.

And drones take forever to reposition. Also the other guy gets to dictate all engagements as he can just leave, with the drone wallowing behind like an 18-wheeler left in the dust of a Veyron.

 

[starviking]

I don't think AETD is going to be the miracle everybody is assuming it is. In the Air Forces own estimates, it is projected to take the F-35 fuel burn from 593 gallons an hour to 474 an hour, flying Mach .75 @ 40k feet.

Equivalent to increasing fuel tankage by 25%, a pretty good improvement.

 

[marauder2048]

The Air Force already has a big hole in its capabilities for the future: it needs what it is calling Penetrating Counter Air, a very fast, long-range, sensor-loaded and furiously lethal aircraft.

Given the distances involved and the comparatively small number of platforms they are envisioning,
supersonic cruise is pretty much required to achieve anything like an effective sortie rate

 

[Mike Pryce]

I don't think AETD is going to be the miracle everybody is assuming it is. In the Air Forces own estimates, it is projected to take the F-35 fuel burn from 593 gallons an hour to 474 an hour, flying Mach .75 @ 40k feet. Compare that to something like Global Hawk with 77 gallons an hour, Mach .6 @ 60k feet.

It just isn't going to be economically feasible to build a big fast gas guzzling screamer to perform air dominance with microscopic loiter times and short range, when you can send drones in there from longer distances with no tanker support that can loiter all day long.

Oh and seriously, good luck with VLO and Mach 2 speeds. That is definitely not going to happen.

Sublight, are those F-35 figures from a public report?

This whole story reminds me of the pre-ATF supercruise studies that looked at 1500nm radius Middle East missions. Big, heavy, awesome looking planes. Focus on short range European missions for ATF was a blessed relief for all, including taxpayers. And that was not cheap.