Stuart Galbraith Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 1 hour ago, urbanoid said: Given how much new F-16s cost, it's actually doing quite well as a replacement. Not so much. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a42912833/f-35-availability-problems/ https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04/pentagon-delays-f-35-retrofits-amid-upgrade-woes/ There has been barely a breath of scandal about the Grippen in contrast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfng3569 Posted August 10 Share Posted August 10 (edited) Northops stealthy loyal wingman drone... with a cockpit.... https://www.twz.com/air/northrops-stealthy-drone-breaks-cover-and-it-has-a-cockpit Edited August 10 by bfng3569 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 I don't know if Drummond got it right, but if he did - this is an approach I agree with. Greater emphasis needs to be put on strike capability of modern aircraft. Today as manned aircraft are gradually replaced by drones for light strike (light munitions), CAS, and mundane missions primarily in less contested airspace, manned fighter aircraft need to bring some greater capability to justify their presence not only in contested airspace. A fighter aircraft that can thus act as a mini bomber, at least to the extent modified F-15 variants could if not greater - is a must. Not for everyone perhaps, but at least for a country like Israel (not saying it'll buy Tempest). Similarly, a light aircraft is also necessary as they're a tremendously important air defense asset. However it does not make sense to me that the USN is currently looking at light aircraft as an alternative to its ongoing efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 The Americans will throw a hissy fit if you buy it. Although yes, it would be a cracking replacement for F15I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrustMe Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 The F35 was primarily designed for ground attack hence the "Joint Strike Fighter" project name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 40 minutes ago, TrustMe said: The F35 was primarily designed for ground attack hence the "Joint Strike Fighter" project name. Israel also wanted the F-22. As a twin engine fighter with larger and stronger wings it had some unique advantages. Although on paper it seems the F-35 is more or less equal in terms of combat range to the F-22 (albeit this metric has 50+ shades to it), I'm sure had the F-22 been further developed and not cancelled, it would have substantially improved in that aspect. For now it seems the long term replacement for the F-15 will be whatever the US manages to produce with the NGAD. In other news, Poland should receive its first F-35 "Husarz" soon. It has reportedly been completed and will be unveiled today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 F-119 engines are thirsty. You would see range increases without drop tanks, which is what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfng3569 Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 6 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said: For now it seems the long term replacement for the F-15 will be whatever the US manages to produce with the NGAD. assuming there is an export variant...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrustMe Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 I've been recently reading about that the NGAD project is being paused whilist intelligence is being collected from the war in Ukraine. Apparently they no longer want a cutting edge design with only a small procurement order, instead they want a cheaper medium edge cutting design for greater procurement numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 That's air force talk for 'we don't know what we want.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrustMe Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: That's air force talk for 'we don't know what we want.' US airforce newspeak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 (edited) I think it is not unreasonable to take a look at a current conflict and make some procurement decisions based on the lessons learned. Edited August 29 by Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 5 hours ago, Josh said: I think it is not unreasonable to take a look at a current conflict and make some procurement decisions based on the lessons learned. I'm not sure what lessons can even be drawn from the almost non-existent air war in Ukraine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfng3569 Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 On 8/10/2024 at 2:05 PM, bfng3569 said: Northops stealthy loyal wingman drone... with a cockpit.... https://www.twz.com/air/northrops-stealthy-drone-breaks-cover-and-it-has-a-cockpit and she flew..... https://www.twz.com/air/northrops-stealthy-model-437-loyal-wingman-drone-with-a-cockpit-has-flown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfng3569 Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said: I'm not sure what lessons can even be drawn from the almost non-existent air war in Ukraine. gotta agree. Other than the opening week, the whole affair seems to have zero resemblance to anything (on the ground or in the air) that the U.S. keeps squawking about with the 'near-peer conflict' buzz word they have been touting for some time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 You are missing major thing here - integrated AD, even if not first rate is a cast iron bitch to neutralize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 12 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said: I'm not sure what lessons can even be drawn from the almost non-existent air war in Ukraine. Fair enough. I think there’s a better chance that the USAF is broke and just cannot afford the program and/or is having doubts about its cost effectiveness given the rapid progress of UCAVs. The Incr1 CCAs are already flying and their are two other designs already flying that likely are Incr2 candidates. You have to wonder if by the time NGAD is put into production it isn’t completely obsolete and overpriced. It reportedly is in the low hundreds of millions per copy - is that worth while when you could by two squadrons of CCAs for the same cost and skip that pesky pilot training step? The counter argument is that automation is not there yet - ok, but how about a decade from now when NGAD actually might enter full rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 8 hours ago, Josh said: Fair enough. I think there’s a better chance that the USAF is broke and just cannot afford the program and/or is having doubts about its cost effectiveness given the rapid progress of UCAVs. The Incr1 CCAs are already flying and their are two other designs already flying that likely are Incr2 candidates. You have to wonder if by the time NGAD is put into production it isn’t completely obsolete and overpriced. It reportedly is in the low hundreds of millions per copyYou have to wonder if by the time NGAD is put into production it isn’t completely obsolete and overpriced. It reportedly is in the low hundreds of millions per copy - is that worth while when you could by two squadrons of CCAs for the same cost and skip that pesky pilot training step? For good reason the USAF have mentioned the century series in the context of the NGAD development. Just instead of rapid development in the fields of materials, propulsion, and aerodynamics - a rapid development of the digital architecture. I don't see a big obstacle here. Today we have companies hard focused on the innovating in the products necessary for such an effort to a great degree. For example if today you want to swap computers rapidly - you need a solid OS. There are multiple OS developers for various military applications. You need continuous development of improved processors. Evolving architecture to swap chips. The ability to integrate semi open source software (from a wide range of defense contractors). And with distribution of tech among a wide range of contractors over several tiers - you get a LOT of people doing R&D on your stuff. All you need is good program management, and you can get a proper digital century series today. This also allows the US to start prototyping the "mechanical" things, i.e. some bare bones aircraft with the new engines, new stealth tech, etc, and incrementally add the digital stuff. I don't see anything wrong with the current direction. Yes, all of this costs a lot of money. Same was with the F-35. And before that with the F-22. And before that with the F-16 and F-15 and F-18 etc etc etc. If you don't allocate enough money, or start arguing with the AF half-way in, you're risking derailing the competent management on which the program's performance relies on heavily. 8 hours ago, Josh said: The counter argument is that automation is not there yet - ok, but how about a decade from now when NGAD actually might enter full rate? I don't think automation difficulties were a prominent consideration at any point since probably the early 2000's. A lot of things today can be fully automated but left somewhat manned because you want to have that level of responsibility and oversight. This becomes exponentially more important the higher you go in terms of systems cost (CCA are still going to be very expensive and not at all attritable), and strategic value of the mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted August 30 Share Posted August 30 9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said: I don't think automation difficulties were a prominent consideration at any point since probably the early 2000's. A lot of things today can be fully automated but left somewhat manned because you want to have that level of responsibility and oversight. This becomes exponentially more important the higher you go in terms of systems cost (CCA are still going to be very expensive and not at all attritable), and strategic value of the mission. Attritable is a relative term, and is more dependent on lifecycle costs and replacement time than fly away cost IMO. If a CCA gets shot down, how long does it take to replace? If you have three different companies making ~100 a year and all you need for pilot training is a download of the latest version of the AI agent, then replacing a loss is measured in days or hours. If PLAAF aircraft are more expensive and they are losing them at a 1:1 ratio to CCAs, that is perfectly sustainable. They will run out of pilots or planes before tge US does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KV7 Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 J-20A with WS-15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrustMe Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 3 minutes ago, KV7 said: J-20A with WS-15 I'm not sure how stealthy it will be with those two forward canards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KV7 Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 22 minutes ago, TrustMe said: I'm not sure how stealthy it will be with those two forward canards. This has been well discussed, and now even modeled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrustMe Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KV7 Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 This is very interesting too, though as above add grains of salt as it is an amateur (but quite careful and well done) analysis: It is odd that Su-57 seemingly has such a strong optimisation for stealth in VHF. https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2023/01/15/f-35-vs-j-20-vs-su-57-radar-scattering-simulation-summary/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 Are they going with a suppressed engine nozzle, or is that how the final design is going to look? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now