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

[Gloire_bb]

GCAP is not going to participate in a war in the Asia Pacific though. The only real threat it’ll face will be Russia aircraft, so until MIG-41 comes out I don’t think it could be meaningfully challenged.

If airframe isn't terribly advanced, and Europe will continue with its ecosystem problems, it's quite difficult to see why normal Russian ecosystem should struggle with it.
That is, Buk-m3+ ecosystem in the front, S-350/500 in the rear, su-57/70 over them (distributed/dispersed/survivable bi-static L-band environment). NGAD is a big problem. GCAP - not really?

Anything that can come from Europe almost by default is easy mode for Russia - because normal expectation for VKS always was the USAF(with EU/UK on top). The current division between gcap, fcas and Sweden outside almost ensures nothing will meaningfully change. Eu is as aggressive as it's inefficient; having people thrown out from national politics as unifying layer doesn't make for good governance.

Even the just introduced Su-57/S-70 ecosystem(which by 2030s will be looking towards MLU) may very well challenge GCAP enough to deny it any deep penetration. It already largely nullifies it's point - why the heck you need a big aircraft in a relatively compact eastern frontline - to simplify airfield targeting?
Then there's su-75 on the "5.5" horizon, which in fact is quite capable of providing numbers. Something that oversized GCAP can not.

Frankly speaking, current spat makes it questionable if GCAP is still a right concept anymore.
Big GCAP (unlike more reasonable FCAS) was clearly designed as something large, expensive yet supplementary in nature; very advanced in some subparts (that Europe still can do), not terribly impressive and clearly downgraded in others.
It currently emerges as a long range/long endurance supplement (to mainline US aircraft that all of Europe intend to buy), touted to happy Biden-Harris world: a Ryukyu patroller/Luzon strait interdictor/Ural bomber.
Without this world, it's almost delusionally out of place.

Frankly, if it goes the way it does, Russian ecosystem will also turn inadequate - why just defend when you can in fact take offensive posture, and Europe is stuck between hysteria and inertia?

Finally, pak-dp, in whatever shape it will come(if it will even) is not Russian 6th gen fighter effort.

 

[KampfAlwin]

View attachment 148481
We are not stupid any more!

Same guy btw

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747644091947417633

 

[GodRektsNoobs]

F-47 Convict can be cheaper than F-22 on per unit basis if:

1. Higher production run
2. They outsource some of the capabilities to CCA, so technically, per unit basis, F-47 could be cheaper but in Pacific scenario, on system basis, it could be more expensive. And its easier to obscure this whole calculus to the low info crowd, which is the vast majority as can be observed on reddit and twitter.

F-47 will definitely be cheaper if USAF and Boeing outsource the manufacturing to AVIC, guaranteed.

 

[mangchaocs]

Same guy btw

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747644091947417633

It seems he deleted that tweet about “The Chinese weren't stupid with J-20”.

Poor Joker.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Same guy btw

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747644091947417633

Well, being fair he isn't wrong here. Without canards, achievable stealth could be lower, and at suffuciently low levels of radar returns, it can become important.
Just, since he said A, can't roll back B - F-47 is quite clearly reflecting design choice, that places priority on maneuver performance over achievable LO levels.

 

[zyklon]

Well, being fair he isn't wrong here. Without canards, achievable stealth could be lower, and at suffuciently low levels of radar returns, it can become important.
Just, since he said A, can't roll back B - F-47 is quite clearly reflecting design choice, that places priority on maneuver performance over achievable LO levels.

That inevitably begs the question: why would Boeing and the USAF prioritize maneuverability over achievable RCS by pursuing a design with canards when they can almost certainly engineer a design without canards?

The general consensus seems to be that sensor technologies for detecting and tracking VLO aircraft are evolving faster than VLO technologies that make aircraft stealthy or at least stealthier. As such, is the USAF going for a less stealthy design because they feel the "additional stealth" that can be achieved sans canards will largely be moot or otherwise make for poor ROI due to emergent sensor technologies?

 

[sevrent]

That inevitably begs the question: why would Boeing and the USAF prioritize maneuverability over achievable RCS by pursuing a design with canards when they can almost certainly engineer a design without canards?

The general consensus seems to be that sensor technologies for detecting and tracking VLO aircraft are evolving faster than VLO technologies that make aircraft stealthy or at least stealthier. As such, is the USAF going for a less stealthy design because they feel the "additional stealth" that can be achieved sans canards will largely be moot or otherwise make for poor ROI due to emergent sensor technologies?

I guess it just comes down to how they designed the canard and the rest of the plane to minimize the impact, but yeah the intent is clear. They still think some degree of maneuverability is important. But I dont think thats a unique position. If the J-50 does have all moving wingtips thats probably a very similar sort of tradeoff. J-36 is the odd one out here tbh

 

[Gloire_bb]

That inevitably begs the question: why would Boeing and the USAF prioritize maneuverability over achievable RCS by pursuing a design with canards when they can almost certainly engineer a design without canards?

Speculation time.
Well, it's their future main air combat platform. Something has to perform contested BVR and WVR, including situations where plane can't or shouldn't back off.
F-22 and 35 don't cut it; as far as i see it, most likely Lockheed proposed low brain effort evolution of their 2235 line (let's notionally call it YF-48), to work together with F-35 fleet in Hi-Lo mix. Not impossible it was stealthier and cleaner(not unlikely more expensive, too, as a hi component), but it also makes F-35 very important. Which is a feature for Lockheed, of course, because please buy F-35 until 2080s.
They and USAF likely ran model fights against main opponents(which for Trump admin is China). We know that LM results were unconviencing.

Why? Maybe YF-48, being traditional LM safe bet, wasn't all that impressive even on paper.
Maybe, and i find this explanation more likely, the F-35-48 ACS was failing on many fronts - for example, F-48 being too expensive, F-35 - too weak (and that's before accounting for risks tied to F-35 program execution, which is famous).

We know Boeing was proposing more radical initiative - which is reasonable, they don't have a basket of golden eggs called F-35(in fact they'd rather kill it). My inner feeling is that boeing tries to make a lighter("medium?"), affordable manned element, very tightly integrated with future evolution of CCAs, meant to push LM out of primary air combat altogether.
And without F-35 being a windows millenium era dead weight on their feet, they could in fact propose more.

 

[constalation]

Well, being fair he isn't wrong here. Without canards, achievable stealth could be lower, and at suffuciently low levels of radar returns, it can become important.
Just, since he said A, can't roll back B - F-47 is quite clearly reflecting design choice, that places priority on maneuver performance over achievable LO levels.

Yes but we must remember, just because the US decided to forgo RCS for better maneuverability doesn't mean that Shenyang couldn't achieve both better RCS and maneuverability at the same time. That depends on its controls(all moving wingtips) and engines etc.

This raises some questions, even though I don't want to underestimate the US.

These 6th gen platforms are built mainly with the Westpac in mind. Its an extremely large area, and is static with lots of radar infrastructure and would have great visibility.

If I had to guess the PLA's doctrine, it would be:

1. Crippling first strikes, and continuous strikes on static enemy infrastructure and logistics.
2. Area denial through BVR combat.

Considering the above and China's advantage in BVR missiles, IMO, the chance for close range, dogfighting WVR engagements would be very low. Any that could happen would be around the Korean peninsula which would be highly exposed to an initial attack.

I also think the emergence of the J-XDS and especially the J-36 'Quasimodo' has put a tactical wrench in their plans. The J-36 will cover the BVR detection and engagement, while the J-XS will cover any WVR engagements + BVR too. Now, since the F-47 'Convict' (lol) seems similar to the J-XDS, any upcoming F/A-XX is definitely not going to cover for the J-36. I am not sure about the B-21 because it being subsonic is a big flaw, and US doesn't have a decisive BVR missile advantage (more at a disadvantage).

When I think about it, I am not exactly sure why the US would choose maneuverability here. A focus on RCS/operation range to limit the BVR and logistics disadvantage is the right way to go.

Again, its early, but perhaps the US got tactically outmaneuvered by the PLA (again)?

 

[sevrent]

Yes but we must remember, just because the US decided to forgo RCS for better maneuverability doesn't mean that Shenyang couldn't achieve both better RCS and maneuverability at the same time. That depends on its controls(all moving wingtips) and engines etc.

This raises some questions, even though I don't want to underestimate the US.

These 6th gen platforms are built mainly with the Westpac in mind. Its an extremely large area, and is static with lots of radar infrastructure and would have great visibility.

If I had to guess the PLA's doctrine, it would be:

1. Crippling first strikes, and continuous strikes on static enemy infrastructure and logistics.
2. Area denial through BVR combat.

Considering the above and China's advantage in BVR missiles, IMO, the chance for close range, dogfighting WVR engagements would be very low. Any that could happen would be around the Korean peninsula which would be highly exposed to an initial attack.

I also think the emergence of the J-XDS and especially the J-36 'Quasimodo' has put a tactical wrench in their plans. The J-36 will cover the BVR detection and engagement, while the J-XS will cover any WVR engagements + BVR too. Now, since the F-47 'Convict' (lol) seems similar to the J-XDS, any upcoming F/A-XX is definitely not going to cover for the J-36. I am not sure about the B-21 because it being subsonic is a big flaw, and US doesn't have a decisive BVR missile advantage (more at a disadvantage).

When I think about it, I am not exactly sure why the US would choose maneuverability here. A focus on RCS/operation range to limit the BVR and logistics disadvantage is the right way to go.

Again, its early, but perhaps the US got tactically outmaneuvered by the PLA (again)?

I dont think maneuverability has to be for WVR necessarily. It can benefit BVR engagements as well. Being able to reposition yourself and move quick in a battlefield is valuable. for the F-47, they probably value supersonic performance/stability and some degree of maneuverability to achieve this if they went with canards.