• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,643
Reaction score
724
AF is looking a terminating whole systems 15 &16 most likely so keeping hot lines is in the opposite direction.
"15 & 16" What is that? It can't be F-15 & F-16 as the USAF is buying more F-15s and the F-16 will probable be around for at least another decade.

Okay. Were go going to show me something that supports your claim? Nowhere in the 5 minute video (time I can't get back) did they say, "we're retiring the F-15 & F-16 fleets".
at 49 sec mark acting AF Sec Matt Donovan said Sec Esper is open to in quote "divesting in legacy capabilities that simply arent suited for future battlefields". What else could being refering to F-100s.
KC-135s, A-10s, C-130s, KC-10s, Predator As, Global Hawk, etc. etc. The fact they're buying NEW F-15s should be enough evidence that they're not getting rid of them. And it'll be years before all current F-16 units will have switched over to F-35s.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,579
Reaction score
88
AF is looking a terminating whole systems 15 &16 most likely so keeping hot lines is in the opposite direction.
"15 & 16" What is that? It can't be F-15 & F-16 as the USAF is buying more F-15s and the F-16 will probable be around for at least another decade.

Okay. Were go going to show me something that supports your claim? Nowhere in the 5 minute video (time I can't get back) did they say, "we're retiring the F-15 & F-16 fleets".
at 49 sec mark acting AF Sec Matt Donovan said Sec Esper is open to in quote "divesting in legacy capabilities that simply arent suited for future battlefields". What else could being refering to F-100s.
KC-135s, A-10s, C-130s, KC-10s, Predator As, Global Hawk, etc. etc. The fact they're buying NEW F-15s should be enough evidence that they're not getting rid of them. And it'll be years before all current F-16 units will have switched over to F-35s.
Transports and tankers and even RSTA are barely future battlefield systems and are not upgraded often at a significant cost as mentioned. The reference was addressing the constant call to update combat craft. Sure, know all about new buys, the latest 15s 16s and are sh-t hot and great (am for it) but what cost to continue to upgrade. Of course Fleet replacements are unlikelyto happen, and ideally need money to keep and speed new craft, but at least someone of DoD high leadeship has mentioned the the unthinkable as an option.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
206
I understand the fear raised by the similitudes with the old soviet system but then, their problems was with built quality, designer level of maturity and... Generalized corruption. All of these are off-range in the present situation and within the US.
If we adopt a critical look into the soviet experience, fact is that despite an improper economy, a lack of industrial base and the effective absence of senior designers and managers, they went in 3/4 years from fabric covered biplane-like airframe to the superior aluminium built Yak-3U.
That's what might be the spirit to look in it, if there is anything.

Add the fact that shareholder driven aerospace mega companies are often lacking the capital structure to offer long term financially rewarding career plan for all their senior designer and, conversely, the junior graduates and you see that there is a void to fill where small business units could prosper aggregating talents without the burden of decades of a force structure plan. I am myself totally convinced that this has all the chances to succeed (combined with larger more conventional procurement programs, let's not forget) while also offering more resiliency to the system (think of the damages large company closure has induced to the defense industry in overall) and augmenting the dynamics of this sector.
 
Last edited:

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,509
Reaction score
533
More from the USAF

 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
143
While I understand what they are attempting, as an engineer, I have problems with it. Mainly because when you run into problems on the first build it's nice to be able to walk to the floor and see the issue. Solid Modeling has made my job much better, but you still run into design issues. Then again, they probably are using software to actually simulate building and manufacturing these vehicles as well.

But, to me, the aircraft design has always been the "easy" part. It's the systems and the propulsion that are the truly long lead items. As long as they are going plug and play on the systems and using a family of modular engines to design around, while having certain steps in thrust isn't ideal, no more rubber engine sizing, it will allow for much quicker airframe designs to be completed and flown. I think the most difficult part of that problem will be the airframe/propulsion integration.
 
Last edited:

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,579
Reaction score
88

From the best USAF name ever Hawk Carlisle
"Acquisition milestones don’t, and shouldn’t, apply. Congress considered changing how it appropriates dollars for software acquisition and sustainment and will likely take it up again next year, but the bottom line is the dollars must look less like milestone-driven hardware development and procurement dollars and more like the yearly loop of operations and maintenance dollars. " This idea sounds like an invitiation to open ended contractor money grabs (yearly unquantified O&M) ie worse than current procurement contracts. Milestones on a cost plus fixed fee is a good start. OTAs could, however be implemented for a design, but if the AF decides on a particular design, they (AF) should own the design both before and after the final build. The builders get paid or penalized regardless of subcontrators performance, as stated in previous posts,
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,509
Reaction score
533

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,579
Reaction score
88

"The CSBA study does not recommend procuring the F-15EX and instead proposes replacing the F-15C/Ds with F-35As in the interim and an unspecified “family of capabilities” for air superiority in the future. "
how about skipping the F-35A buy;) and going straight to the “family of capabilities” and for more than air superiority,
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,035
Reaction score
78
How about skipping the "family of capabilities" and going for the "extended family of capabilities" for the post 2050 timeframe?
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
213
They have to do something better, currently the situation is a Horlicks of a cock up.
 

In_A_Dream

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
88
Reaction score
16
I think it's difficult for them to forecast what their future fighter will be. It's kind of a chess match with China, what is China planning for their 2030+ Air Force? What kinds of capabilities will they have? Will they rely on cheap drones to do the fighting for them against 6th gen A/C?

I definitely agree US fighters of the future will certainly need much longer legs. Nimbleness and tactical maneuverability may not be necessary in the future if they just need to stand back and let a bunch of loyal wingmen do the fighting for them. Maybe a larger carrier aircraft will be part of the future, something able to deploy multiple recoverable or expendable drones across long distances into combat environments.

Who knows!
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,179
Reaction score
88
And why should the USAF be hurried into going 6th Generation, they still have plenty of F-22s left despite loosing some to accidents, plus they also have the F-35 coming on stream now as well.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,643
Reaction score
724
And why should the USAF be hurried into going 6th Generation, they still have plenty of F-22s left despite loosing some to accidents, plus they also have the F-35 coming on stream now as well.
Because if they start RIGHT NOW it might be into service in 20 years. If they decide in 10 years, "hey we need a new one NOW" they'll be SOL. The other guy will be building their NEXT one by then.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
213
"The Air Force is developing new air-launched hypersonic weapons that will be able to fly at speeds of Mach 5 or faster and be highly maneuverable against enemy air defenses".

Hypersonic yet highly maneuverable? How does that work?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,643
Reaction score
724
"The Air Force is developing new air-launched hypersonic weapons that will be able to fly at speeds of Mach 5 or faster and be highly maneuverable against enemy air defenses".

Hypersonic yet highly maneuverable? How does that work?
*sigh* It's all relative. They don't mean "manueverable" like it's going to manuever like a biplane at the local airshow. They mean manueverable in comparison to typical hypersonic missiles/RVs have in the past. This should be obvious.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,035
Reaction score
78
I fully expect the hypersonic BGV's to pitch up and do a falling leaf maneuver on their way to the target.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
56
Website
www.quora.com
"The Air Force is developing new air-launched hypersonic weapons that will be able to fly at speeds of Mach 5 or faster and be highly maneuverable against enemy air defenses".

Hypersonic yet highly maneuverable? How does that work?
I have heard there is a new coined term after the development of the iskander-m and kinzhal called, "quasi-ballistic" that describes missiles with capabilities to maneuver at every phase of their flight profiles other than just entering the terminal or re-entry phase which can already be done with just ballistic missiles. I only wish that a certain hypersonic missile project for a certain 5th gen aircraft gets an internal carry.
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
13
Reaction score
8
My impression was the Air Force needs the F-15 for its Mach 2.2 speed and payload capability for air-launched hypersonic missiles. F-35 slower at max Mach 1.6/7 with reduced payload and if launching a hypersonic missile it would need to be smaller, lower in weight, requiring a larger and heavier booster rocket to get up to hypersonic speed severely limiting its useful range and weapon payload?
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
206
@Cordy : Hypersonic missiles doesn't come in Coca can size. I am not sure that the Max Mach is significant enough there. Size maybe (the overall added drag of the missile is less in percentage with a bigger aircraft).
 

rooster

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
119
Reaction score
37
My impression was the Air Force needs the F-15 for its Mach 2.2 speed and payload capability for air-launched hypersonic missiles. F-35 slower at max Mach 1.6/7 with reduced payload and if launching a hypersonic missile it would need to be smaller, lower in weight, requiring a larger and heavier booster rocket to get up to hypersonic speed severely limiting its useful range and weapon payload?
And about a 120nm range at that speed and no external gas.
 

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
84
Reaction score
29
How do we deal with foreign sales? How will the United States sell fighters to other countries? Israel, Gulf monarchies, Australia, Japan, South Korea and perhaps Egypt are the countries that buy American-made fighters. If these fighters are built to fly only 20 years how can you upgrade them and sell them to allied countries?
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
143
How do we deal with foreign sales? How will the United States sell fighters to other countries? Israel, Gulf monarchies, Australia, Japan, South Korea and perhaps Egypt are the countries that buy American-made fighters. If these fighters are built to fly only 20 years how can you upgrade them and sell them to allied countries?
If they are successful at doing what they are talking about, they can probably make "export" versions of the systems and make airframes tailored more to the needs of the foreign air force's requirements.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,643
Reaction score
724
How do we deal with foreign sales? How will the United States sell fighters to other countries? Israel, Gulf monarchies, Australia, Japan, South Korea and perhaps Egypt are the countries that buy American-made fighters. If these fighters are built to fly only 20 years how can you upgrade them and sell them to allied countries?
Probably the same way we do now.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,643
Reaction score
724
My impression was the Air Force needs the F-15 for its Mach 2.2 speed and payload capability for air-launched hypersonic missiles. F-35 slower at max Mach 1.6/7 with reduced payload and if launching a hypersonic missile it would need to be smaller, lower in weight, requiring a larger and heavier booster rocket to get up to hypersonic speed severely limiting its useful range and weapon payload?
And about a 120nm range at that speed and no external gas.
An F-15 would likely be able to get a large weapon up to a higher launch speed than an F-35. You don't need high Mach from the time you leave the runway.
 

rooster

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
119
Reaction score
37
It needs fuel enough to get ta launch point and if its going to hit mach 2 then its going to be dragged by a KC all the way there and back as it will not hit mach speeds greater than a f35 while it has external gas. A big heavy draggy missile, all internal fuel. Doesn't sound viable. All this is just nonsense anyways it isn't happening.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,643
Reaction score
724
It needs fuel enough to get ta launch point and if its going to hit mach 2 then its going to be dragged by a KC all the way there and back as it will not hit mach speeds greater than a f35 while it has external gas. A big heavy draggy missile, all internal fuel. Doesn't sound viable. All this is just nonsense anyways it isn't happening.
Put that big weapon on an F-35 and see how far it goes.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,579
Reaction score
88
"A study released earlier this year by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments called for a total overhaul of the carrier air wing, starting with fully committing to the MQ-25 Stingray, an autonomous refueling tanker that the study said should be able to drag a limited number of Super Hornets out to ranges that make a new kind of concept of operations work against Chinese and Russian threats. "

Prior to my F-14 evolution post being deleted there could have been a discussion about a “Next Generation Advanced Engine effort,” allowing a F-14 size (more onboard fuel) swing wing stealth fighter bomber affording the range and low altitude infiltration which could render useful the carrier wing.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,643
Reaction score
724
Prior to my F-14 evolution post being deleted there could have been a discussion about a “Next Generation Advanced Engine effort,” allowing a F-14 size (more onboard fuel) swing wing stealth fighter bomber affording the range and low altitude infiltration which could render useful the carrier wing.
Still can be - in another thread. But then it would just devolve into an argument about how swing-wings are "old-fashioned".
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
206
I know the story has been already told with the Tomcat, but a Super C (F-35) will probably meet most of the urgent needs post 30's.
 
Top