US F/A-XX and F-X 6th Gen Aircraft News Thread

[Jura The idiot]

continuation of the article due to word limit.

sounds like

1. Roper thing
Apr 15, 2019

I knew I'd heard of Mr. Roper's ideas before ... Mar 7, 2019
now inside

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:
"Instead of finalizing one design and then building hundreds of identical aircraft, you’d design a basic plane or satellite or other weapons system, build some, make improvements, build some of the improved model, improve that, and on and on. “You just keep spiraling,” Roper said."

into death spiral? LOL

; "an Oxford-trained string theory physicist" in action

2. they realized they wouldn't have money, as they'll have to pour twenty or so billion into the F-35 yearly during 2020s and beyond, so spin-doctors come up with
"The Air Force’s budget justification documents described the 50% cut as a spending deferral." explanation

 

[Brumby]

.

At some point it will come back to hardware and numbers.
Autonomous system are nice and I trust them for AEW, ISR, Signt/Elint, Tanker, Strike even transport but air to air engagement or CAS?
F35 was designed as a strike fighter. It’s main mission set is and will remain air to ground with a degree of air to air.
F22 was designed first for Air supremacy with a light degree of strike it can do air to ground but is meant to compliment strike fighters which is what F35 is.

To use your chess analogy F35is the rook F22 the queen.
F35 keeps the enemy from going low F22 kills from on high.

In this type of conversation, I believe it is helpful to have perspective so that the nature and scope have some form of reference point. My reference is the 2030 Air Superiority document that was released in 2016 which helped to anchor some key considerations.

Firstly “air superiority” is basically defined as achieving an outcome that provides freedom of action for a period of window. Secondly the threats associated in preventing this preferred state are due to two threat vectors; viz (i) emerging integrated and networked air-to-air, surface-to-air, space and cyberspace threats; and (ii) a series of comprehensive capabilities with a less predictable impact on warfare. Finally, future development pathway necessitates agility and a non-linear approach to mitigate technological risk.

Since the release of that document, successive statements from USAF top officials have intentionally indicated a preference for a collaborative system of systems approach rather than a traditional platform centric development pathway. The recent AWST article continues to affirm this preference. I don’t believe the USAF intends to repeat the concurrency problems long associated by critics to the F-35 program. A system of systems approach will avoid the critical paths so often associated to single point of failures and its impact on the total program.

Based on the above premise, I am basically taking a view that it is more likely than not any future platform that we traditionally relate to will be pushed towards the latter part of the development cycle while development and investments will be focused on a series of future technologies that are deemed to be core in delivering the effects to the intended end state. Those technologies in my view would include lasers, AI, unmanned teaming and hypersonic.

A pictorial representation of a changed landscape might look like this:




The question I have is what makes the F-22 superior to the F-35 in air combat manoeuvring. In a future dog fight say between a Super Raptor against a F-35 2.0 armed with laser, who would win? In my mind, can you possibly out manoeuvre light? In other words, would new technology change the fabric of traditional dog fight and consequently the type of platform needed in the future? Would a queen today remain a queen in the future?

I don’t have the answers and neither I believe the USAF. However what I believe is that a system portfolio approach that is being advocated allows them to hedge their bets.

 

[Air Force Brat]

My apologies for the lack of posting on the thread. It's not a stomp off from losing an argument. I had my laptop stolen out my hands while I was on BART in the SF Bay area. sigh. I was tired and knew better, but...well, it'd been a long day. I have another now. sigh.

That said, I was told there was an amendment to the USAF request specifically for the NGAD. The AOA is apparently done and they are doing a reset. The budget request for 2020 was slashed in half to $500M from $1B. Assuming this is true, the PCA or whatever NGAD will become has been pushed back at least a couple years, assuming they haven't just scaled back a more ambitious aircraft program. As soon as a link emerges, I'll post.

Sorry about your lap-top Mr. Anzha, that really stinks, I constantly remind the "Honey Badger" to observe and establish "situational awareness"... she charges out of the store onto the parking lot, so I kind of "hang back" and see where she goes, LOL! in the last 2 or 3 months we have made many trips for supplies for our old house we are "remodeling"! (no divorce yet, but close a few times!)

We have a white Dodge Durango, she has consistently tried to get in the wrong vehicle lately around 62% percent of the time, I've even had to "HEY!" the "Honey Badger" as she reached for someone else's door handle, no doubt losing your "laptop" made you long for a "phazer" set to "Stun!", then you could have taken your laptop back and given the thief and fine couple of large lumps on his head for later as you "laptop whipped" him... not as much fun as "pistol whipping" would be but satisfying non the less!

 

[Air Force Brat]

Welp. No NGAD. This will get cancelled by the next administration with little to no progress. At least we'll have wildly obsolete F-15EXs!

I believe Mr. Anzha that I "Told you So!" in one of our few disagreements here on SDF, and you informed me that their must be "proto-typing" proceeding apace... as there was money allocated and "being spent".

Now, here we are in "Will Roper Land", out beyond the "crab nebula" of thinking and military planning, in other words we are in "no where land"!!

Its absolutely non-sense to propose a new proto-type every 3 to 4 years, and that starts Will Roper off on his little nightmare scenario of intellectual "farting", farting here, farting there, lots and lots of farting! it smells real bad and will make people "think" you are accomplishing something, when in fact all you're left with is "bad smell"!

and sadly we are unlikely to end up with those updated very capable F-15EX's, which would be extremely helpful honestly, if they didn't take away from what we will really need...

which is a real high end fighter, as Mr. Terran states, an upgraded modernized F-22.... there's never been a problem with having a "capability trust" far greater than your enemy...

As the Russian's and Chinese continue to struggle to bring their 5th Gen fighter's up to speed, the "Star Gazer's" will "diddle around" with all this "bullshit" rather building a high end 5th Gen for the real world we live in.... thinking this gives us lots of time?? you never have enough time, never....

Yes, we need to invest in technology, but for the present and near term, we need to "hedge our bets", and move forward with a capable 5th Gen Hi end platform to take us into the next Century!

I'd hate to have to come back here and say "I told you so", it gives me NO PLEASURE to be right! I wish it were I coming back to you and saying, "Damn, that's a cool "future fighter".... definitely manned, tail, (my preference) or no tail, build the damn airplane!

 

[Jura The idiot]

... In a future dog fight say between a Super Raptor against a F-35 2.0 armed with laser, who would win? ...

it depends on if it rains

 

[Air Force Brat]

In this type of conversation, I believe it is helpful to have perspective so that the nature and scope have some form of reference point. My reference is the 2030 Air Superiority document that was released in 2016 which helped to anchor some key considerations.

Firstly “air superiority” is basically defined as achieving an outcome that provides freedom of action for a period of window. Secondly the threats associated in preventing this preferred state are due to two threat vectors; viz (i) emerging integrated and networked air-to-air, surface-to-air, space and cyberspace threats; and (ii) a series of comprehensive capabilities with a less predictable impact on warfare. Finally, future development pathway necessitates agility and a non-linear approach to mitigate technological risk.

Since the release of that document, successive statements from USAF top officials have intentionally indicated a preference for a collaborative system of systems approach rather than a traditional platform centric development pathway. The recent AWST article continues to affirm this preference. I don’t believe the USAF intends to repeat the concurrency problems long associated by critics to the F-35 program. A system of systems approach will avoid the critical paths so often associated to single point of failures and its impact on the total program.

Based on the above premise, I am basically taking a view that it is more likely than not any future platform that we traditionally relate to will be pushed towards the latter part of the development cycle while development and investments will be focused on a series of future technologies that are deemed to be core in delivering the effects to the intended end state. Those technologies in my view would include lasers, AI, unmanned teaming and hypersonic.

A pictorial representation of a changed landscape might look like this:

View attachment 52771


The question I have is what makes the F-22 superior to the F-35 in air combat manoeuvring. In a future dog fight say between a Super Raptor against a F-35 2.0 armed with laser, who would win? In my mind, can you possibly out manoeuvre light? In other words, would new technology change the fabric of traditional dog fight and consequently the type of platform needed in the future? Would a queen today remain a queen in the future?

I don’t have the answers and neither I believe the USAF. However what I believe is that a system portfolio approach that is being advocated allows them to hedge their bets.

The F-22 will always remain superior to the F-35 in ACM, lasers while neat, will always have a down side as Mr. Jura for once gets something right in Air Combat, LOL, sorry Jura.....

Now Mr. Brumby, we do indeed need hardware and a platform, seems that you've been watching too many re-runs from "Battle Star Galactica", looks like you have at least one "Ceylon" bird in your little fleet?? LOL

while all of the cool toys are indeed cool, and we do need to engage our enemy as they attempt to disrupt our "command and control" from space, it will get complicated, but we do need to "stay the course" and maintain our "air superiority" in the conventional realm, because I assure you, our enemies will, they are not blinded by "pie in the sky, bye and bye".

 

[Jura The idiot]

The F-22 will always remain superior to the F-35 in ACM, lasers while neat, will always have a down side as Mr. Jura for once gets something right in Air Combat, LOL, sorry Jura.....

oh thank you, and no problem LOL
Prague
Saturday 16:00
Partly Cloudy

90
°F
with a thunderstorm approaching and since this is a 'futuristic' thread, let me tell you if ever airborne lasers are of any use (other than stuffing manufacturers' pockets), airframes will be made of heat-absorbing stuff (NASA's Space Shuttle tiles come to mind) in response

 

[Air Force Brat]

oh thank you, and no problem LOL
Prague
Saturday 16:00
Partly Cloudy

90
°F
with a thunderstorm approaching and since this is a 'futuristic' thread, let me tell you if ever airborne lasers are of any use (other than stuffing manufacturers' pockets), airframes will be made of heat-absorbing stuff (NASA's Space Shuttle tiles come to mind) in response

good thought!

 

[Jura The idiot]

good thought!

LOL even if it was, it'd be the 22nd (it's the twenty-second) century

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

In this type of conversation, I believe it is helpful to have perspective so that the nature and scope have some form of reference point. My reference is the 2030 Air Superiority document that was released in 2016 which helped to anchor some key considerations.

Firstly “air superiority” is basically defined as achieving an outcome that provides freedom of action for a period of window. Secondly the threats associated in preventing this preferred state are due to two threat vectors; viz (i) emerging integrated and networked air-to-air, surface-to-air, space and cyberspace threats; and (ii) a series of comprehensive capabilities with a less predictable impact on warfare. Finally, future development pathway necessitates agility and a non-linear approach to mitigate technological risk.

Since the release of that document, successive statements from USAF top officials have intentionally indicated a preference for a collaborative system of systems approach rather than a traditional platform centric development pathway. The recent AWST article continues to affirm this preference. I don’t believe the USAF intends to repeat the concurrency problems long associated by critics to the F-35 program. A system of systems approach will avoid the critical paths so often associated to single point of failures and its impact on the total program.

Based on the above premise, I am basically taking a view that it is more likely than not any future platform that we traditionally relate to will be pushed towards the latter part of the development cycle while development and investments will be focused on a series of future technologies that are deemed to be core in delivering the effects to the intended end state. Those technologies in my view would include lasers, AI, unmanned teaming and hypersonic.

A pictorial representation of a changed landscape might look like this:

View attachment 52771


The question I have is what makes the F-22 superior to the F-35 in air combat manoeuvring. In a future dog fight say between a Super Raptor against a F-35 2.0 armed with laser, who would win? In my mind, can you possibly out manoeuvre light? In other words, would new technology change the fabric of traditional dog fight and consequently the type of platform needed in the future? Would a queen today remain a queen in the future?

I don’t have the answers and neither I believe the USAF. However what I believe is that a system portfolio approach that is being advocated allows them to hedge their bets.

First. By Super Raptor I was referring to a service life extension for the platform using the Lightning 2.0 systems.
Lasers thus far have proven a fair Terminal phase weapon. In essence attacking targets in the dozen Km range. As such missiles and performance still exists. F22 still has higher altitudes and faster speeds well still having excellent low observable and larger ammunition supply.

The point was however not competing against F35 2.0 but complimenting. Systems of systems.
It may not out maneuver light but missiles are still a kill mechanism it’s just a matter of finding a way to prevent the enemy from getting the reaction time to engage the laser or Maser.
Part of the failure of the F22 and F35 is that they cannot talk to each other. You have two stealth platforms F22 the older higher faster and F35 not as fast or as high or well armed in LO configuration but smarter. These two should “play together” complimenting the strengths and weaknesses of each other. But the management failed on that part.

You created that attachment which I like of distributing and off loading sensor networks. Okay but it shouldn’t just feed to Lighting it should feed to a number of kill chain assets and I would basically remove the E2.