Air Force Developing Amraam Replacement To Counter China

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

How many can F-15EX carry? 

And I echo Stuart's sentiment about the F-14.  Cheney's decision to kill that bird is looking worse than ever.  She may have been maintenance intensive, but big airframe plus big thrust has a lot to recommend it.

It's ironic the LWF (YF-17) evolved into a F-15 sized airframe but with less thrust.  Yet another example of false economies.

Doug

 

Well, the second generation ones would likely have fixed a lot of that, proper 90's electronics, new engines, the works.

https://www.twz.com/29653/this-is-what-grummans-proposed-f-14-super-tomcat-21-would-have-actually-looked-like

The Super Tomcat 21 would be a modification of the original F-14 design and it was to feature GE-F110-129 motors that would allow the Tomcat to super-cruise (achieve mach 1+ without using afterburner) continuously at mach 1.3. Additionally, the jet would have an upgraded APG-71 radar, modified and enlarged control surfaces, and enlarged leading edge root extensions (LERX) that would house more fuel and enhance the jet's low speed handling capabilities. Thrust vectoring nozzles tied directly to a new digital flight control system were also an option. These modifications would give the "Turkey Bird" true super-maneuverability and eye-watering acceleration and sustained speed. Additionally, super-cruise combined with its additional internal fuel carriage capacity would have given the Super Tomcat much greater range than it already had. The jet would also be able to carry targeting and navigation pods, giving it true multi-role capability. Finally, a new single-piece windscreen would be added to provide much better forward visibility.

There was also a more deep strike optimized version floated called Attack Super Tomcat 21. From an avionics standpoint this jet would be a major leap forward compared in comparison with its predecessors, with an attack FLIR and Terrain Following Radar housed in the Phoenix missile mount's aerodynamic fairings under the fuselage. The Infra Red Search & Track system and Television Camera System would be mounted in under-nose pods similar to the F-14D's TCS/IRST pod. Also, the aircraft would have upgraded cockpit avionics including a new wide angle heads up display (HUD) that would be capable of projecting the navigational FLIR's imagery. New mission computers and an upgraded self defense suite was included in the more elaborate Attack Super Tomcat 21 proposal. The Super Tomcat 21 and the Attack Tomcat 21 were pitched as a concept for remanufacturing existing F-14s or for new build aircraft.

 

It was interesting to read a book by an F14 RIO, many of the problems they were having at the end were speed and G limitations due to frame cracking. If they had cranked the line up again (or at least indulged in significant remanufacture) many of those problems could have been rectified.

 

There was IIRC, a Phoenix replacement that was also in the works. That got canned as well.

[Renegade334]

13 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

How many can F-15EX carry? 

And I echo Stuart's sentiment about the F-14.  Cheney's decision to kill that bird is looking worse than ever.  She may have been maintenance intensive, but big airframe plus big thrust has a lot to recommend it.

It's ironic the LWF (YF-17) evolved into a F-15 sized airframe but with less thrust.  Yet another example of false economies.

Doug

F15EX can carry twelve AMRAAMs with four twin-rail weapon hardpoints on the wings and four fuselage hardpoints. If you add into the equation the centerline HS, replace the inboard and outboard twin-rail wing HPs with single-rail WHP and assume the fuselage WHP (below the conformal fuel tanks area) are rated for a 3,000lbs load (TBH I do not know if that figure incorporates the weight of the RIM-174's booster or not), that could bring the loadout to seven Standards. Assuming the fuselage WHPs aren't up to the job (there are two WHPs per side, but with the Standard's length, that should only allow one weapon per side), that still makes five. Fuel and range requirements/constraints could whittle it down to four.

As for the F14, as good as the plane was (an all-time favorite of mine, I must confess), much of the spare parts production line had already been shuttered to the point where Tomcat maintenance crews were having headaches over them and cannibalizing museum pieces and mothballed units for replacements. Relaunching production at a time where people were already saying "maybe we should make something stealthier or a better jack-of-all-trades than the Bombcat currently is" was an argument without much weight behind it.

Edited July 4, 2024 by Renegade334
fixing some of the nomenclature

[Stuart Galbraith]

It was a poor argument at a time when the USN was supreme at sea. If they knew that some 30 years later they would be facing a resurgent Russia and China would be girding their loins, perhaps they would have changed their mind. But I doubt it. Support for the Tomcat in service I think was pretty miserable, even when it was their prime fleet defender. And one guy in the cockpit must have made sense to somebody, or they wouldnt have done it.

As said, a new build of Tomcat would have solved all these problems, just as a new build of F15's solved most of their problems. But, it never happened, because Cheney was being lobbied by MDD, and they got what they lobbied for.

When you look at how the size of the US Carriers has increased, and the size of the air wings has collapsed (along with some significant capablities like dedicated air tankers and stand off ASW) to me there are some indications that the USN is really great at not talking to itself. That they are trying to shoehorn fleet defence into an airframe not remotely suited for it is the best indication of this.

Edited July 4, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Ol Paint]

4 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

F15EX can carry twelve AMRAAMs with four double-rail weapon hardstations on the wings and four flank hardstations. If you add into the equation the centerline HS, replace the inboard and outboard double-rail wing HS with single-rail HS and assume the flank HS (underneath the conformal fuel tanks area) are rated for a 3,000lbs load (TBH I do not know if that figure incorporates the weight of the RIM-174's booster or not), that could bring the loadout to seven Standards. Assuming the flank rails aren't up to the job (there are two HS per flank, but with the Standard's length, that should only allow one weapon per flank), that still makes five. Fuel and range requirements could whittle it down to four.

As for the F14, as good as the plane was (an all-time favorite of mine, I must confess), much of the spare parts production line had already been shut off to the point where the maintenance crews were having headaches over them and cannibalizing museum pieces and mothballed units for replacements. Relaunching production at a time where people were already saying "maybe we should make something stealthier or a better jack-of-all-trades than the Bombcat currently is" was an argument without much weight behind it.

Even without 20/20 hindsight, the equation of big, capable airplane equals adaptability and room for growth is well known.  We've made this trade several times and it's a bit of a vicious cycle where we make a high-low split, then sacrifice the number of high platforms because the low end platforms are cheaper, run into limitations of the small platforms, try to correct by creating a new high-end platform (with even more bells and whistles), then create another low-end platform, and repeat. 

Along these lines, we should be asking what our force would look like if we hadn't truncated the F-22 and instead spent the money burned on the F-35 program on procurement and upgrading of the F-22?  Would we be talking about the same sparing and sustainment issues for the fleet if the production line was still active?  Even setting aside some of that money for developing a AV-8B replacement, we'd still be looking at a major force of F-22s with an active upgrade and maintenance parts program.

While there's issues with gold-plating of programs, there's also issues with wasting R&D money--see DDG-1000, Crusader, RAH-66, and B-2, for example, where we get programs through all the developmental issues just to kill it and burn a bunch more money trying to come up with something else to do the same job.

In the 1990s, I'm all for continued evolution the F/A-18C, but not as a replacement for the F-14.  There's a legitimate question whether the advanced Tomcat makes more sense than some variant of NATF, but the F-18E/F never made much sense in that role.

Doug

[TrustMe]

The US navy tried to build a stealth aircraft called the A12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II ,  in 1991 after much effot and treasure spent it the porject was finally cancelled. 

I think that what the US navy has got now isn't to bad with hundreds of F18e/f/g's and some F35C's in the pipeline.

What I will say is that the amount of aircraft per carrier should increase to cold war levels. At the moment they have around 40 aircraft and helo's during the 1980's they usually had 80 or so aircraft per carriers.

 

 

[bfng3569]

18 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

How many can F-15EX carry? 

And I echo Stuart's sentiment about the F-14.  Cheney's decision to kill that bird is looking worse than ever.  She may have been maintenance intensive, but big airframe plus big thrust has a lot to recommend it.

It's ironic the LWF (YF-17) evolved into a F-15 sized airframe but with less thrust.  Yet another example of false economies.

Doug

 

how many can a B-21 carry..... 

imagine that thing trolling around way out ahead of AWACS or other sensor platforms popping enemy tankers/bombers/awacs....

 

[DB]

On 7/3/2024 at 6:20 PM, TrustMe said:

It looks big and heavy. I wonder if the F16V could carry it?

It is, and it rather give the lie to the claims put for the AIM-260.

The US should just buy into Meteor. Localize the warhead and seeker and be done with it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

NIH.

 

[bfng3569]

18 hours ago, DB said:

It is, and it rather give the lie to the claims put for the AIM-260.

The US should just buy into Meteor. Localize the warhead and seeker and be done with it.

what lie?

[Cajer]

On 7/4/2024 at 12:20 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well, the second generation ones would likely have fixed a lot of that, proper 90's electronics, new engines, the works.

https://www.twz.com/29653/this-is-what-grummans-proposed-f-14-super-tomcat-21-would-have-actually-looked-like

The Super Tomcat 21 would be a modification of the original F-14 design and it was to feature GE-F110-129 motors that would allow the Tomcat to super-cruise (achieve mach 1+ without using afterburner) continuously at mach 1.3. Additionally, the jet would have an upgraded APG-71 radar, modified and enlarged control surfaces, and enlarged leading edge root extensions (LERX) that would house more fuel and enhance the jet's low speed handling capabilities. Thrust vectoring nozzles tied directly to a new digital flight control system were also an option. These modifications would give the "Turkey Bird" true super-maneuverability and eye-watering acceleration and sustained speed. Additionally, super-cruise combined with its additional internal fuel carriage capacity would have given the Super Tomcat much greater range than it already had. The jet would also be able to carry targeting and navigation pods, giving it true multi-role capability. Finally, a new single-piece windscreen would be added to provide much better forward visibility.

There was also a more deep strike optimized version floated called Attack Super Tomcat 21. From an avionics standpoint this jet would be a major leap forward compared in comparison with its predecessors, with an attack FLIR and Terrain Following Radar housed in the Phoenix missile mount's aerodynamic fairings under the fuselage. The Infra Red Search & Track system and Television Camera System would be mounted in under-nose pods similar to the F-14D's TCS/IRST pod. Also, the aircraft would have upgraded cockpit avionics including a new wide angle heads up display (HUD) that would be capable of projecting the navigational FLIR's imagery. New mission computers and an upgraded self defense suite was included in the more elaborate Attack Super Tomcat 21 proposal. The Super Tomcat 21 and the Attack Tomcat 21 were pitched as a concept for remanufacturing existing F-14s or for new build aircraft.

 

It was interesting to read a book by an F14 RIO, many of the problems they were having at the end were speed and G limitations due to frame cracking. If they had cranked the line up again (or at least indulged in significant remanufacture) many of those problems could have been rectified.

 

There was IIRC, a Phoenix replacement that was also in the works. That got canned as well.

Allot of the reason the 14 was canceled was due to very low availability and high required maintenance hours due to bad reliability from both the old electronics and the swing wing design.  Availability was below 50% much of the time, and the aircraft was constantly leaking hydraulic fluid for the swing wing.

Additionally this would have been a super-hornet type situation, where it's a entirely new aircraft design that's wearing the skin of an older aircraft.  Here it would still be inheriting all of the issues of the F-14 and all of the cost of a new design along with parts commonality issues.

Edited July 5, 2024 by Cajer

[Ol Paint]

2 hours ago, Cajer said:

Allot of the reason the 14 was canceled was due to very low availability and high required maintenance hours due to bad reliability from both the old electronics and the swing wing design.  Availability was below 50% much of the time, and the aircraft was constantly leaking hydraulic fluid for the swing wing.

Additionally this would have been a super-hornet type situation, where it's a entirely new aircraft design that's wearing the skin of an older aircraft.  Here it would still be inheriting all of the issues of the F-14 and all of the cost of a new design along with parts commonality issues.

Not quite. 

The idea behind suggesting the F-14 line was the better option is that new-build airframes would be procured, not refurbishment of A/B models into Ds or Es.  Because the F-14 started out as a bigger airframe from the beginning, it would not be necessary to increase length by 10%, add 25% wing area, install larger diameter engines (with the airframe modifications that entails)--as was done to the F-18 to create the Super Hornet.  I don't see anyone claiming the F-15EX is inheriting maintenance issues legacy F-15A/B models.  Or maintenance man-hours from the F-16A carrying over to the F-16E Block 70.

Under the same conditions, an evolved F-14 design assumed to be rolling off the production line today should not have the same maintenance man-hour penalty as a refurbished F-14A/B converted to F-14D.  When looking at maintenance man hours per flight hour, it should be factored in that there were only 37 new build F-14Ds were procured with 18 A models converted--out of a total fleet of 612 (not counting the 79 for Iran).   Therefore, the vast majority of the fleet had the older avionics, older airframes, and older combat systems (e.g. AWG-9 vs APG-71).  I'd expect those early jets to have higher MMH requirements, even brand new, compared to the B or D model.   The disparity in numbers will necessarily skew the metrics.

Doug

[DB]

9 hours ago, bfng3569 said:

what lie?

That it will have enough range to counter the longer range Chinese AAMs.

[bfng3569]

1 hour ago, DB said:

That it will have enough range to counter the longer range Chinese AAMs.

still not following.

where's the lie?

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, Cajer said:

Allot of the reason the 14 was canceled was due to very low availability and high required maintenance hours due to bad reliability from both the old electronics and the swing wing design.  Availability was below 50% much of the time, and the aircraft was constantly leaking hydraulic fluid for the swing wing.

Additionally this would have been a super-hornet type situation, where it's a entirely new aircraft design that's wearing the skin of an older aircraft.  Here it would still be inheriting all of the issues of the F-14 and all of the cost of a new design along with parts commonality issues.

Thats true, but the vast majority of the fleet were A models that dated from the 1970's. Most of the B's and the D's were just rebuilt A's, which improved availablity, but were still rebuilds. With the frame cracking issues, im sure that was an issue, even with the D's that were rebuilt, which was most of them.

What was envisaged with either converting old F14's into an extensively rebuilt airframe, or entirely new build ones, which would not have been subject to the same problems. It would have had new electronics, an improved radar, and the F14 had already been converted to fly by wire, so you could arguably go the whole hog and strip most of the hydraulic systems out and just go with a primary (lighter)electronic flight control system.

Besides, ive seen a video heralding in the F14 into service from the early 1970's, which boasted of its increased availablity and ease of maintenance compared to the F4. Which either illustrates how far maintenance in teen series jets had come, or more likely, how worn out the basic airframes were. Im sure the  F18C's when they were still in service with the USMC were similarly challenging to keep going.

[Dawes]

The A-6F was sacrificed to provide funding for the A-12. The A-6F was obviously a decidedly non-stealthy airframe, but it would seem to have provided the fleet with a long-range, heavy payload carrier with updated systems.

[DB]

12 hours ago, bfng3569 said:

still not following.

where's the lie?

I can't tell whether you're being obtuse at this point.

The AIM-260 is touted as being the Next Big Thing after AMRAAM, being magically both smaller and longer ranged.

I don't care how clever the motor is, or what aerodynamics it has, it's not in the same class as Meteor, or the latest Russian and Chinese missiles, despite claims of "world record" ranges in testing.

The point is, if it was "all that", then you wouldn't need to slap an SM-6 onto an F/A-18. It feels like a desperate, emergency response to problem that could have ben easily solved a decade ago.

[seahawk]

52 minutes ago, DB said:

I can't tell whether you're being obtuse at this point.

The AIM-260 is touted as being the Next Big Thing after AMRAAM, being magically both smaller and longer ranged.

I don't care how clever the motor is, or what aerodynamics it has, it's not in the same class as Meteor, or the latest Russian and Chinese missiles, despite claims of "world record" ranges in testing.

The point is, if it was "all that", then you wouldn't need to slap an SM-6 onto an F/A-18. It feels like a desperate, emergency response to problem that could have ben easily solved a decade ago.

If the Hornets carry it primarily as an AAM.

[Stuart Galbraith]

It does seem a very strange attitude when the ready solution to the problem is already sitting on European shelves. But hey, USN decision making on procurement has been a problem for some time, and it seems unlikely its going to change anytime soon.

[Cajer]

15 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

Not quite. 

The idea behind suggesting the F-14 line was the better option is that new-build airframes would be procured, not refurbishment of A/B models into Ds or Es.  Because the F-14 started out as a bigger airframe from the beginning, it would not be necessary to increase length by 10%, add 25% wing area, install larger diameter engines (with the airframe modifications that entails)--as was done to the F-18 to create the Super Hornet.  I don't see anyone claiming the F-15EX is inheriting maintenance issues legacy F-15A/B models.  Or maintenance man-hours from the F-16A carrying over to the F-16E Block 70.

Under the same conditions, an evolved F-14 design assumed to be rolling off the production line today should not have the same maintenance man-hour penalty as a refurbished F-14A/B converted to F-14D.  When looking at maintenance man hours per flight hour, it should be factored in that there were only 37 new build F-14Ds were procured with 18 A models converted--out of a total fleet of 612 (not counting the 79 for Iran).   Therefore, the vast majority of the fleet had the older avionics, older airframes, and older combat systems (e.g. AWG-9 vs APG-71).  I'd expect those early jets to have higher MMH requirements, even brand new, compared to the B or D model.   The disparity in numbers will necessarily skew the metrics.

Doug

A primary reason for the maintainability/reliability issues was the swing wing.  New builds/avionics were not going to get around that issue.  With that in mind, you're still getting all the issues of a new build without fixing the core issue with the design.

[TrustMe]

What i've read is that this new navy SM missile is capable of communicating with a AEGIS compatible naval ships and other F18's fited with the missile giving it a better envelope to defend a carrier force with.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 minutes ago, Cajer said:

A primary reason for the maintainability/reliability issues was the swing wing.  New builds/avionics were not going to get around that issue.  With that in mind, you're still getting all the issues of a new build without fixing the core issue with the design.

That isnt the reason why they canned future Tomcat though, otherwise they wouldnt have kept them in service for another 16 years...

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

What i've read is that this new navy SM missile is capable of communicating with a AEGIS compatible naval ships and other F18's fited with the missile giving it a better envelope to defend a carrier force with.

The whole point of fleet defence is that it takes place beyond carriers own air defence screen, conducting the outer air battle. Which makes communicating with an AEGIS compatible ship pointless, if the engagment is happening over the horizon. If they are communicating with the ships, then its likely because someone screwed up and they are engaging the missiles after they were launched, rather than killing the bombers before they pulled the trigger.

 

[bfng3569]

2 hours ago, DB said:

I can't tell whether you're being obtuse at this point.

The AIM-260 is touted as being the Next Big Thing after AMRAAM, being magically both smaller and longer ranged.

I don't care how clever the motor is, or what aerodynamics it has, it's not in the same class as Meteor, or the latest Russian and Chinese missiles, despite claims of "world record" ranges in testing.

The point is, if it was "all that", then you wouldn't need to slap an SM-6 onto an F/A-18. It feels like a desperate, emergency response to problem that could have ben easily solved a decade ago.

obtuse?  hardly.

when you make a the statement 'it rather give the lie to the claims put for the AIM-260.'  but offer no explanation or further commentary of what you are implying or trying to say, it begs the question, 'what the hell are you talking about'.

The AIM-174 to date has zero implications to the AIM-260 program.  Whether the 260 achieves the goals and performance that has been talked about remains to be seen, the development of an air launched SM-6 for the navy has zero to do with it and does not 'imply' anything about the aim-260 program.

[TrustMe]

Article on the AIM-174 ....

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/07/u-s-navy-confirms-sm-6-air-launched-configuration-is-operationally-deployed/

[Josh]

19 hours ago, DB said:

That it will have enough range to counter the longer range Chinese AAMs.

AIM-260 is supposed to more or less equal the performance of PL-15, the missile for internal J-20 carriage. There is additionally an oversized external only missile seen on the J-11 variously reported as PL-17/20/21 which is reported to be a 300-400 km anti AWACs weapon. Air launched SM-6 would be more in this class.