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

[Mike Pryce]

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.

And the design teams are gone, so that takes time to re-build. We forgot CAD stood for computer assisted design. F-35 woes show how testing is not just verifying the computer design.

 

[FighterJock]

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.

And the design teams are gone, so that takes time to re-build. We forgot CAD stood for computer assisted design. F-35 woes show how testing is not just verifying the computer design.

Too true Harrier, you can only do so much on computers anyway, time to go back to the old way of testing, the wind tunnels.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Lots of wind tunnel work on F-35. Aero not the issue, structures more so, although what you look for and how you interpret results of tunnel test is a human design issue. Planes are structures, but even FEA needs a decent initial design from a person to analyse. There is no agreed best layout for a fighter, unlike airliners, so you need a real design team to come up with one that works and then to see it through.

Such teams take time to grow but are easily got rid of as overhead. After all, don't computers design?

The one hope is that computers replace the accountants!

 

[bring_it_on]

Air Force conducting NGAD risk-reduction to support PCA analysis

As the Air Force continues its study of a future Penetrating Counterair capability, the service is working to mature additional air dominance capabilities that it could field on the new platform or be fed onto other systems.

The service's fiscal year 2018 budget request called for $4.5 billion over the future years defense plan to fund Next-Generation Air Dominance research and development efforts. Some of that money supports an ongoing PCA analysis of alternatives, but Col. Tom Coglitore, who is leading the AOA, told Inside the Air Force this week the funding is also supporting key risk-reduction efforts to prepare the service to field and support any capability needs identified in the AOA. The AOA is slated to conclude in about a year.

Coglitore spoke at a July 10 Mitchell Institute event along with other members of the team that recommended the PCA study as part of an Air Dominance 2030 report the service published last year. He told ITAF following the event the parallel risk-reduction work is key to helping the service prepare to field PCA technologies in the late 2020s.

"There are things that we're going to need -- whether it's from PCA or other things," Coglitore said. "So we're pursuing that path right now. And then as the AOA finishes up, that will help us zero in on what the important attributes are and then what risks we need to burn down in order to enable that capability to be developed."

Coglitore would not highlight specific technologies the service is testing -- so far, those are all classified -- but said they include mostly "mission systems-related things" in the research and development realm. The FY-18 budget request calls for $294 million for NGAD next year and $507 million in FY-19. That request more than doubles to $1.3 billion in FY-20. The service attempted to reprogram $147 million to support the effort in FY-17, but Congress denied the request. Coglitore said those funds would have directly supported the risk-reduction work.

The Air Force has been laying a foundation for a new air-dominance platform for several years. Pentagon officials in 2011 approved a requirement for an F-22 follow-on -- once pegged as a sixth-generation fighter, then dubbed more broadly as Next-Generation Air Dominance. Last summer, as part of a renewed developmental planning and experimentation effort, the service conducted the Air Dominance 2030 study, which considered what technology gaps might preclude the service from maintaining air superiority against future threats.

That study helped the service refine its vision for NGAD, according to Brig Gen. Alex Grynkewich, who led the effort and spoke at the July 12 event. Rather than view NGAD as a single platform to replace the F-22 or F-35, he said, the service now thinks of it "more as a node in a network than as a fighter or a replacement."

"It's really not a replacement for those," Grynkewich said. "It's a distinct capability that I would argue provides a key node in that network to help find and fix. . . . That node in the network could be used for kinetic effects, it could be used for non-kinetic effects or any number of things."

Grynkewich noted that the NGAD moniker is a "legacy" term that pre-dates last year's study. While the service still uses the term to label the AOA and the risk-reduction work, PCA is the specific capability it is pursuing.

"We're wrestling ourselves with the nomenclature a little bit," he said.

Coglitore noted that it's important to view PCA as one piece of a family of capabilities and not to bill it as a fighter or particular type of platform.

"Those folks who say it's a fighter, they're looking at it in an old-school way versus how we have looked at it for several years now," he said.

The ongoing AOA is seeking to define the PCA trade space and along with considering what the sensors and mission systems might look like, it is also evaluating whether existing platforms may be able to host those capabilities or whether the service should build something new to host them, Coglitore said.

He told ITAF the Air Dominance 2030 study looked closely at the cost of restarting the F-22 line to potentially support PCA capabilities and confirmed that analysis is being considered as part of the AOA.

"In our one-year study, we looked at the cost of re-starting and the capabilities we could incorporate into a new or modernized F-22 or even an existing F-22 and all of those were taken into consideration," he said. "They will also be taken into consideration in the AOA as well. So we always -- in the analysis of alternatives, we always look at existing programs to see if they can meet our needs. If it does, then we'll have good, solid numbers for how much that will cost. If it doesn't, we'll look for other opportunities to provide that capability."

The Air Force sent Congress a classified report last month on the cost and feasibility of restarting the line, which stopped production in 2012. In an unclassified summary, the service said it estimates it would cost about $50 billion to buy an additional 194 F-22s at about $206 million to $216 million per jet. That total includes $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs.

 

[sferrin]

Such teams take time to grow but are easily got rid of as overhead. After all, don't computers design?

I could totally see the pointy-heads thinking like that. Dilbert is a documentary.

 

[DrRansom]

I must admit that I am confused by the USAFs approach.

From current force structure, the pure Air Superiority aircraft are either old (F-15C's) or too small and on a quick road to early air frame issues (F-22s). The F-35s can do air superiority, in the way that F-16s can, but they will be needed for strike missions. So I do not understand why the USAF views the PCA as a network enabler. When the PCA is in the force, what is there to enable? Unless the USAF is making leaps ahead in UCAV design and employment, the PCA will be THE air superiority aircraft.

I would think that a safer design is to build the PCA as THE air superiority aircraft, using whatever technology is necessary for that role. Network enabling requires there to be platforms to be enabled and present USAF force structure doesn't have room for any useful platforms.

There is yet another trend worth considering. The new anti-PGM point defenses, developed by Russia and China but not the US, will lead to an increase in the number of aircraft required for a strike package. We are in a way reverting to the 1970s and 1980s, a strike package will need dedicated EW support, SEAD, and multiple strikers to ensure some weapons get through. Of course, stealth is a prerequisite to even get near the FEBA. The large number of F-35s may find less efficient than was hoped for, no more 2-aircraft per target missions. That will decrease the number of F-35s available to be network enabled.

Now, a network enabling PCA could make sense, if any of the following happen:
1. USAF builds many more B-21s and can devote some to A2A.
2. USAF builds a stealthy arsenal plane (ha)
3. USAF builds a magical super long range A2A missile, which can be employed from outside the enemy threat ring.
4. USAF gets a ton of airframes which can shoot medium to long range missiles.

With all of the above, I just don't get the idea that PCA will be a network enabler. The airframes in the 2030 timeframe aren't going to be enough to be network enabled.

 

[sferrin]

The new anti-PGM point defenses, developed by Russia and China but not the US, will lead to an increase in the number of aircraft required for a strike package.

Nah, just use a weapon with submunitions that can overwhelm such a system.

 

[bring_it_on]

The new anti-PGM point defenses, developed by Russia and China but not the US, will lead to an increase in the number of aircraft required for a strike package.

Unless you can create effects that can degrade or destroy these anti-PGM point defenses. I noticed Sfferin beat me to it, but to add think non kinematic options as well including using decoys, and smaller jammer payloads and unmanned aircraft to stress them through electronic warfare. The classic way is to give them too many targets to shoot at, most of those could be launched via unmanned assets. But think Gremlins, MALD-J+++s thrown in as well.

AI is going to be a great enabler here..think of swarms of low cost MALD-J like systems taking over SEAD missions networked with multiple glide munitions...

 

[sublight_]

Coglitore noted that it's important to view PCA as one piece of a family of capabilities and not to bill it as a fighter or particular type of platform. "Those folks who say it's a fighter, they're looking at it in an old-school way versus how we have looked at it for several years now," he said.

 

[DrRansom]

The new anti-PGM point defenses, developed by Russia and China but not the US, will lead to an increase in the number of aircraft required for a strike package.

Unless you can create effects that can degrade or destroy these anti-PGM point defenses. I noticed Sfferin beat me to it, but to add think non kinematic options as well including using decoys, and smaller jammer payloads and unmanned aircraft to stress them through electronic warfare. The classic way is to give them too many targets to shoot at, most of those could be launched via unmanned assets. But think Gremlins, MALD-J+++s thrown in as well.

AI is going to be a great enabler here..think of swarms of low cost MALD-J like systems taking over SEAD missions networked with multiple glide munitions...

I don't see how that invalidates my point.

Say we have a target which requires a 2000lb bomb to destroy it. Under the stealth paradigm, a F-35 can carry two of those, with a ~0.9 Pk using a JDAM. One Plane, (Mostly) One Bomb, One Target.

Now we are going to go to a point defense environment, any additional support (Gremlins, MALD-Js, etc) will have to come from another F-35 and probably more than one at that. There is a shift from the precision bomb revolution back towards an case where multiple weapons employed by multiple aircraft are needed to ensure a total high Pk. The number of targets hit by an air wing will decrease, because F-35s are being reassigned to defense suppression.

sublight - I am confused by the USAFs idea, because looking at the force structure, there aren't that many airframes to deliver capabilities.

 

[Triton]

Now who believes that the United States Air Force will introduce Penetrating Counter-Air in 2032? When 2032 rolls around, will we continue to be kicking ourselves that we didn't re-open the F-22 Raptor line to produce an additional 194 aircraft? The United States Air Force has announced that the F-22 airframe will be in service until 2060. At least another 43 years of system upgrades for the F-22. Penetrating Counter-Air isn't even a paper airplane and some of us are advocating abandoning new F-22 aircraft as obsolete for the next fighter aircraft program. How long will we have to wait for a F-15C and F-22 replacement because of engineering delays? Is the Joint Strike Fighter the new normal of how much time these things take to develop?

 

[Airplane]

Now who believes that the United States Air Force will introduce Penetrating Counter-Air in 2032? When 2032 rolls around, will we continue to be kicking ourselves that we didn't re-open the F-22 Raptor line to produce an additional 194 aircraft? The United States Air Force has announced that the F-22 airframe will be in service until 2060. At least another 43 years of system upgrades for the F-22. Penetrating Counter-Air isn't even a paper airplane and some of us are advocating abandoning new F-22 aircraft as obsolete for the next fighter aircraft program. How long will we have to wait for a F-15C and F-22 replacement because of engineering delays? Is the Joint Strike Fighter the new normal of how much time these things take to develop?

Careful there. You are using logic.

 

[sublight_]

sublight - I am confused by the USAFs idea, because looking at the force structure, there aren't that many airframes to deliver capabilities.

I think classified capability components are the new normal, and buzz phrases like "family of capabilities" and "system of systems" is just their way of conveying it without saying there is a classified element as part of the structure.

 

[bobbymike]

From Air Force Association

Northrop Gets Contract for Future Thermal, Power Research

Northrop Grumman Tuesday joined Lockheed Martin in receiving matching $409 million contracts to develop “revolutionary and innovative” thermal and power control technologies for next generation aircraft. The Northrop was announced Tuesday, with Lockheed receiving its contract on June 30. The indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract calls for the companies to develop next generation thermal, power, and controls, with a deadline of July 2024 for demonstrations. The Air Force Research Laboratory received seven offers, the announcement states. The research coincides with the Air Force’s push for next-generation air superiority, including the use of directed energy and lasers, driving a requirement for a next generation thermal and power research. The contract is part of an ongoing Next Generation Thermal, Power, and Controls (NGT-PAC) program, which involves multiple government agencies in addition to the Air Force, the announcement states. —Brian Everstine

 

[Dragon029]

I think some of you are twisting their words; remember that the article states:

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.

as well as:

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.”

He added that the PCA’s missions will include air escort, fighter sweep, suppression of enemy air defenses, and defensive counter-air.

What I get when I read from is something like a VLO arsenal plane combined with an AWACs and F-22 - something that will go behind enemy lines with the F-22s, F-35s, B-2s and B-21s, but stick just behind the leading flights, providing C5ISR, augmenting the missile magazines of F-22s and F-35s during offensive pushes (so that those fighters can retain some missiles for self-defensive or bomber escort purposes), and all round providing counter-air capabilities. It likely won't be as agile as the F-22 or F-35, but if it has a deep missile magazine and sensors, etc, I don't see why it can't be highly effective in fending for itself.

Also, it's worth noting things like comments from Carlisle, Bogdan, Goldfein, etc in the past 12 or so months - it seems to me that the procurement plan for PCA will be similar to the B-21, which itself is slightly similar to the Super Hornet's - have an incremental approach where the PCA will achieve IOC with an "Increment 1" design that has the advanced airframe, but otherwise will use MOTS equipment. This first increment will be superior to the F-22 and F-35 in some ways, but may very well be inferior or not appreciably different in others (think like the original Block 1 Super Hornet, except without the airframe just being an enlarged F-22/35). Increment 2, 3, etc will then bring in the rest of the capabilities originally envisioned, making it as superior to the F-22, etc as the Block II / III F/A-18E is to the F/A-18C. They even somewhat mention this idea in the article:

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.”

The big challenge for the USAF under this concept will be convincing future Congress to fund the jet's upgrades, lest it become like the F-22 and it's absent IRST or cheek-mounted AESAs.

 

[mrmalaya]

Here is a genuine question.

If allies such as UK/Japan say to the US "We want in on this programme and we want a product by 2030", does that make it more likely or will you tell me they will be encouraged to buy an F35 because the US is still reliant on 1990s technology?

 

[Hood]

The image I have of PCA is an MQ-25/Global Hawk mashup, a long-endurance stealthy UCAV, internal weapons stowage (probably not deep but sufficient for self-defence/opportunistic kills) with a long-rage AESA and lots of processing power and networking equipment.
If manned it would have to be a two-seater and I think you'd be looking a pretty big aircraft, something like an F-111 at the minimum and something like a B-21 at the upper scale. For a network enabler I'm not sure you need it to be manned.

I wouldn't read too much into "a key flying sensor platform with lots of weapons", those weapons don't have to be on the airframe. A UAV controlling a dozen F-35s has plenty of weapons. Better still pair a PCA UAV with a couple of Arsenal Planes and a small number of F-22s and you have a lot of firepower, especially for the SEAD elements of the PCA concept.

 

[sferrin]

I wouldn't read too much into "a key flying sensor platform with lots of weapons", those weapons don't have to be on the airframe. A UAV controlling a dozen F-35s has plenty of weapons.

I disagree. A recognized problem, for sometime now, is that there aren't enough weapons available in the air. The F-35 doesn't fix that problem, but until it can carry 6 internally, makes the problem worse. If they're going for something like what's described in the last few posts, I wouldn't be surprised if the B-21 and PCA use the same airframe, or at the least, have a great deal of commonality.

 

[bring_it_on]

AFSAB Penetrating Counterair technology study already informing AOA

The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board is preparing to brief senior leaders on a study of the viability of technologies that could support a Penetrating Counterair capability -- work that is directly informing an ongoing analysis of alternatives.

The study was one of three 2017 AFSAB studies, which also included a look at the Air Force's test and evaluation infrastructure and the challenges associated with certifying concurrent nuclear systems as the service approaches a modernization bow-wave. The board will begin briefing senior leaders on the study results in late July.

Werner Dahm, the board's chair, told Inside the Air Force in a June 30 interview the PCA study considered a broad slate of potential technologies -- from the platform itself, to its mission systems and supporting systems -- and whether those technologies are mature enough to support the service's objective for PCA. It also looked at when those technologies might be available, where the service could prioritize investment to further mature them and how much those capabilities might cost.

"Our job was purely technology," Dahm said. "We don't design the platform, we don't tell the Air Force how and what platform it should do and what missions it should do. We looked at the technology viability to support that."

The Air Force is six months into an 18-month AOA for a future air dominance capability. Officials have said the system may not be a next-generation fighter jet, but rather a suite of capabilities that could be fielded on an existing platform. Because the service wants to begin fielding the system in the next decade, it is trying to determine where to incorporate new technology and is also performing risk-reduction on a number of potential capabilities. Dahm said AFSAB's study supported those efforts, helping the service make sure that those technologies under serious consideration "are really ready."

He noted that cost was a particularly important consideration in the study.

"The term viability to the average citizen sounds like it's only about whether the technology can do what you say it does or not," he said. "This has to be produce-able, operational and sustainable with non-infinite funds, and that was a very important piece of the study."

Because the board hasn't briefed service leaders on the results -- which will likely be classified due to sensitivity surrounding PCA -- Dahm could not discuss specific findings or technology the board reviewed. Broadly, the team considered a range of capabilities that could be needed to operate in an anti-access, area-denial environment, including things like low observability, communications and fire power.

Dahm said the study's alignment with the ongoing AOA makes it particularly relevant to the service and could be a model for future AFSAB work. Col. Tom Coglitore, who is leading the analysis, was part of the AFSAB panel, so the board's findings were directly informing the AOA throughout the study, Dahm said.

"It's already informing the Air Force process," he said. "The level of depth that this study went into and the level of access the study was given was amazing and I think we've got a product out of this that is well-connected to the AOA."

Results from the board's other two studies on test and evaluation infrastructure and nuclear surety will also be reviewed with service leadership this month.

 

[Airplane]

I wouldn't read too much into "a key flying sensor platform with lots of weapons", those weapons don't have to be on the airframe. A UAV controlling a dozen F-35s has plenty of weapons.

I disagree. A recognized problem, for sometime now, is that there aren't enough weapons available in the air. The F-35 doesn't fix that problem, but until it can carry 6 internally, makes the problem worse. If they're going for something like what's described in the last few posts, I wouldn't be surprised if the B-21 and PCA use the same airframe, or at the least, have a great deal of commonality.

Unless the -21 is supersonic and has supercruise, no way, no how.... Ever. PCA will have supercruise. Period.

An airplane about the size of an -111 with 80 to 90klbs thrust isn't going to be a subsonic dorito.

We are not developing +45,000lb thrust engines so the -21 can be a single engined medium weight bomber.

Fitting the -21 with long range AAMs using forward sensors in the -35 and PCA makes a lot of sense but ONLY if we get something like over 140 Raiders and if we have a secret long range aam on the books.

 

[NeilChapman]

I wouldn't read too much into "a key flying sensor platform with lots of weapons", those weapons don't have to be on the airframe. A UAV controlling a dozen F-35s has plenty of weapons.

I disagree. A recognized problem, for sometime now, is that there aren't enough weapons available in the air. The F-35 doesn't fix that problem, but until it can carry 6 internally, makes the problem worse. If they're going for something like what's described in the last few posts, I wouldn't be surprised if the B-21 and PCA use the same airframe, or at the least, have a great deal of commonality.

Unless the -21 is supersonic and has supercruise, no way, no how.... Ever. PCA will have supercruise. Period.

An airplane about the size of an -111 with 80 to 90klbs thrust isn't going to be a subsonic dorito.

We are not developing +45,000lb thrust engines so the -21 can be a single engined medium weight bomber.

Fitting the -21 with long range AAMs using forward sensors in the -35 and PCA makes a lot of sense but ONLY if we get something like over 140 Raiders and if we have a secret long range aam on the books.

Couple of thoughts on that...

Engine tech has a tremendously long development time. US has been working these programs for over 10 years. Sometimes the plans change while the work is being done.

There was a decision to ensure Advent follow-on, AETD, is adaptable as 135 upgrade.

The "tech" is more encompassing than a single engine. I'm sure the tech dev will continue after AETD finishes around 2021.

The AETD program engines can be dry as well as wet making it valuable tech for PCA, B-21 as well as F-35 and anything else they want to put it in.

---

You could be correct about PCA being supersonic, I just don't see how it being very "fiscally likely" in the 2020's to have a deep magazine (w/o DE), long legs, wicked fast and stealthy.

 

[dark sidius]

Look the ESAV study

 

[Airplane]

I don't consider 1.8 mach to be wicked fast. If it was sustained +2.0 operation, then that's when things really heat up because of friction and become more costly. I would be willing wager real money that if or when PCA flies, its maximum speed will also be its cruise speed and will be under 2.0. With fighters, whether it can sprint to 2.2 for a few minutes or 2.8, it just isn't relevant. Its not fast enough and high enough for the, lets call it the -71 effect, to turn out of the way of sams and ruin their trajectory predictions. So lets go on record: its not going to be wickedly fast. It wont outrun a clean eagle in the 100 yard sprint, but it will out-cruise the -22 all day long.

Even dry thrust, PCA will have have more thrust than a -14d in full AB. That right there alone should be enough to settle the question of if it will be supersonic!!! Read that again, more thrust than. a -14d in full afterburner.

Or how about this... It will have in dry thrust, HALF the thrust of the supersonic -1b in full AB.

Even if it doesn't have burners in the cans, it will knock your socks off.

The one and only way it will be subsonic with that kind of thrust is if they wrap the engines in a big fat unaerodynamic airframe. They had to do that with the -35 to fit the fuel and weapons in an airframe suitable for the CVNs. That's why the -35 is relatively slow for the thrust it has.... Because of the frickin Navy and USMC and British reqs.

And for the record, quit saying speed is money. Two and half the speed of sound is money. Up to about one point eight just aint anything at all to get bent up about. You know what's more expensive? Losing a war. Under 2.0, is nothing at all with regards to money....

 

[bring_it_on]

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2017-1757

 

[Hood]

It might be supersonic or a super-cruiser but if its not a fighter and is a flying internet server then it doesn't need to be supersonic. I don't see PCA as being a mother-ship flying alongside its F-22s or F-35s, but something a little way back, basically a stealthy and pervasive mini-AWACS able to defend itself and cue others in.
I'm not so sure PCA is going to be a direct F-22 replacement or some kind of two-seat fighter/SEAD platform, such an aircraft might well form part of PCA later but PCA is a wider concept.

 

[dark sidius]

It need to be supersonic, it will be an air dominance Platform so to intercept ennemy fighter there is a need for speed , to encounter rapidly everything in the air it need to be supersonic , to escape in a need it need the supersonic speed, for the rest the B-21 will do the job.

 

[NeilChapman]

I don't consider 1.8 mach to be wicked fast. If it was sustained +2.0 operation, then that's when things really heat up because of friction and become more costly. I would be willing wager real money that if or when PCA flies, its maximum speed will also be its cruise speed and will be under 2.0. With fighters, whether it can sprint to 2.2 for a few minutes or 2.8, it just isn't relevant. Its not fast enough and high enough for the, lets call it the -71 effect, to turn out of the way of sams and ruin their trajectory predictions. So lets go on record: its not going to be wickedly fast. It wont outrun a clean eagle in the 100 yard sprint, but it will out-cruise the -22 all day long.

Even dry thrust, PCA will have have more thrust than a -14d in full AB. That right there alone should be enough to settle the question of if it will be supersonic!!! Read that again, more thrust than. a -14d in full afterburner.

Or how about this... It will have in dry thrust, HALF the thrust of the supersonic -1b in full AB.

Even if it doesn't have burners in the cans, it will knock your socks off.

All great points. What kind of range does the F-22 have running Mach 1.5? Couple hundred nautical miles? Would the AF want to count on tankers being able to get close enough in a near-peer engagement?

The one and only way it will be subsonic with that kind of thrust is if they wrap the engines in a big fat unaerodynamic airframe. They had to do that with the -35 to fit the fuel and weapons in an airframe suitable for the CVNs. That's why the -35 is relatively slow for the thrust it has.... Because of the frickin Navy and USMC and British reqs.

Perhaps they've learned their lesson. I think the memories are "fresh" enough to negate any arguments for a common airframe.

And for the record, quit saying speed is money. Two and half the speed of sound is money. Up to about one point eight just aint anything at all to get bent up about. You know what's more expensive? Losing a war. Under 2.0, is nothing at all with regards to money....

To be fair, I was stating that speed is the "money question" i.e. the critical decision. I said without stealthy tanker options the range requirements are brutal. If it's supersonic, it's not as likely to have the range required to get very deep inside an A2/AD environment to kick the door down for B-21's.

Perhaps with airframe designs taking advantage of the ADVENT/AETD tech there will be solutions.


*EDIT* The Naval version will have to be supersonic. My questions are about how the range requirement is managed for the AF PCA.

 

[bring_it_on]

...

 

[bobbymike]

...

Have the rest of this presentation?

 

[Dragon029]

http://www.acq.osd.mil/se/briefs/2016-10-26-NDIA-SEC-Holland-ERS.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.acq.osd.mil/se/briefs/2016-10-26-NDIA-SEC-Holland-ERS.pdf

Thanks!!

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Now who believes that the United States Air Force will introduce Penetrating Counter-Air in 2032? When 2032 rolls around, will we continue to be kicking ourselves that we didn't re-open the F-22 Raptor line to produce an additional 194 aircraft? The United States Air Force has announced that the F-22 airframe will be in service until 2060. At least another 43 years of system upgrades for the F-22. Penetrating Counter-Air isn't even a paper airplane and some of us are advocating abandoning new F-22 aircraft as obsolete for the next fighter aircraft program. How long will we have to wait for a F-15C and F-22 replacement because of engineering delays? Is the Joint Strike Fighter the new normal of how much time these things take to develop?

I strongly agree with you here. When they are so averse to even calling this thing a fighter I have immediate doubts we'll see this by 2032 which itself seems an awfully long time from now.

 

[sferrin]

Now who believes that the United States Air Force will introduce Penetrating Counter-Air in 2032? When 2032 rolls around, will we continue to be kicking ourselves that we didn't re-open the F-22 Raptor line to produce an additional 194 aircraft? The United States Air Force has announced that the F-22 airframe will be in service until 2060. At least another 43 years of system upgrades for the F-22. Penetrating Counter-Air isn't even a paper airplane and some of us are advocating abandoning new F-22 aircraft as obsolete for the next fighter aircraft program. How long will we have to wait for a F-15C and F-22 replacement because of engineering delays? Is the Joint Strike Fighter the new normal of how much time these things take to develop?

I strongly agree with you here. When they are so averse to even calling this thing a fighter I have immediate doubts we'll see this by 2032 which itself seems an awfully long time from now.

Can you blame them? If they call it a fighter the usual crowd will immediately start crowing about the "obsolete, Cold War relic of an F-22" and demanding the cancellation of the F-35. "The F-35 is so terrible the USAF wants to start spending money on its replacement". Facts won't be within 100 miles of the various hit pieces.

 

[Dreamfighter]

In my humble view, after reading all the contributions here sofar, a lot of the linked to publications and some other non-fanboy articles on the vast web, the at present "not-to-be-called-a-fighter-anymore / it-is-not-a-fighter" PCA might just turn out to be a fighterjet after all. (assuming there won´t be a F-22 restart that provides lots of new airframes).

Why I think so?
1.
As has been pointed out by some in preceding posts (Dr. Ransom a.o., if I remember correctly), the fleet of "fighters" that will have to be "enabled" by the PCA - especially the air-air assets - are not that numerous anymore. (F-15s becoming obsolete, F-22s to limited in numbers, F-35 rather a strikefighter then an air-superiority/-dominance platform, Navy Superbugs also not the youngest design anymore, etc).
Although all kinds of new air-warfare concepts float around with drones, AI-swarms, stand-off hypersonic stuff, cyber-SEAD, etc., I´m still convinced there is a need for an aircraft to replace types like the F-15s and F-22s, meaning a need for kinematic performance with an emphasis on speed, (greater) range, survivability, and still adequate manoeuvrabillity.
So besides the few F-22s, what aircraft is the US going to use for air-air warfare? F-35s and UAV-swarms? I don´t think so. Those are good, but alone not good enough.

2. The F-35 is a "fighter". Well, a strikefighter. Well, not the sleekest and fastest one, doesn´t do Cobra´s, but still a fighter. Right?
What are they (Air Force folks) saying and highlighting about it?
Things like "What we really are learning and appreciating about the F-35, is how great an enabler it is. It´s not a traditional fighter anymore, but it´s unprecedent situational awareness and data-sharing turns it in a kind of mini-AWACS". (not a speficic quote, just summarising what I got stuck in my head from reading several publications). Similar things have been said about the F-22s, though the data-sharing with those is not always "optimal" depending on who the receiver is.

3. USN is also involved in NGAD. They need a future successor for their F/A-18E/Fs. Most probably they´ll want (a variant with) supercruise, great range, enough manoevrability to go aside their F-35Cs. And not tooo big, to fit enough of them on the carriers.


So, imho, they just want more of the awareness & cyber & force-enabling stuff the F-35 brings to the table (to be stretched even further in later increments) and add greater speed and range/persistence to that. Maybe DE-weapons too if the sweat dreams come to promise.
So not a "traditional fighter" like the 4th generation ones, but a kind of "God´s Eye Networked Enabling Cyber Fighter". But still a fighter, just a very smart and fast one. And that´s why they (at least some of them) don´t like the term "fighter" for it. Because it will do a heck more then shooting it´s amraams and do the (very) occasional dogfight. Probably it won´t be bought in high numbers (I´m thinking rather F-22 fleet size, or like the envisioned B-21 numbers), but it will be a high-end penetrator, and one of it´s tasks will be to enable /assist more numerous F-35s, UAVs and maybe some flying missile-stocks to do their job. And as Sferrin says, calling it a "fighter" might again stir up a lot of uninformed folks.

 

[Dragon029]

3. USN is also involved in NGAD. They need a future successor for their F/A-18E/Fs. Most probably they´ll want (a variant with) supercruise, great range, enough manoevrability to go aside their F-35Cs. And not tooo big, to fit enough of them on the carriers.

I'm not sure about this; the Navy's previously said that the F/A-XX could be little more than a Super Duper Hornet - sure they want longer ranged jets, more payload, more combat capability, etc, but the Navy in particular also wants to have high readiness rates with the F/A-XX. I'm not sure an F-111 or F-108 sized VLO jet will give them that. They may end up giving in though; I don't know how well a non-VLO F/A-XX would cope against squadrons of J-20s and VLO UCAVs.

 

[bring_it_on]

The Navy's high interest in the FA-XX/NGAD can be gauged by the amount of money they sought for it in the FY18 request.

 

[dark sidius]

It will finish just the PCA for USAF, Navy want's no money for FA/XX in the 18 year budget it seems that the Navy have not a great interest in futur air dominance.

 

[bring_it_on]

Correct, that is not a priority that the USN leadership wishes to invest in. At least at the moment. Its not like this wasn't predictable. For good or bad, they will be investing in networks, sensors, weapons and perhaps unmanned aircraft to provide the sort of edge an all strike fighter fleet needs to defeat high end A2AD air-air components.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Yes, concerning the US Navy, upgraded and more andvanced block Super Hornets is what is next.
But they´ll need to replace it eventually, say timeframe 2030-2035? (though not with a pure air-dominance platform but a F/A-whatever)
Or would they go with just (future variants of) F-35s augmented by UAVs once the SHs need replacement?

 

[bring_it_on]

Yes, concerning the US Navy, upgraded and more andvanced block Super Hornets is what is next.
But they´ll need to replace it eventually, say timeframe 2030-2035? (though not with a pure air-dominance platform but a F/A-whatever)
Or would they go with just (future variants of) F-35s augmented by UAVs once the SHs need replacement?

The need to replace or SLEP aircraft will obviously remain but the apetite to invest in a multi-billion dollar program seems to be lacking. With the way the UCLASS was handled, it appears the USN does not intend on advancing the needle when it comes to the air component for the high end threat beyond networks and perhaps weapons. Again if they do, we will get a fairly sizable advance notice through their budget requests. At this moment they have requested exactly ZERO dollars for a new fighter in their FY18 request.