The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

[marauder2048]

Distances are much larger in the Pacific.

I think that's the real motivator even for Europe where the threat to allied airfields from cruise and
ballistic missile attack is such that you'd be forced to operate from the more distant bases particularly
during the early stages of the campaign.

[wrightwing]

One thing that can be said with 100% certainty, is that the PCA won't be a stealthy B-1R.

[sferrin]

One thing that can be said with 100% certainty, is that the PCA won't be a stealthy B-1R.

Why would anybody think it would be?

[southernphantom]

One thing that can be said with 100% certainty, is that the PCA won't be a stealthy B-1R.

Why would anybody think it would be?

Because some folks (myself included) have read too much Dale Brown and are partial to the idea of "flying battleships", especially with talk of PCA being a rather large airframe. I could see how that talk could be taken to an extreme and twisted into a bomber-sized aircraft.

[wrightwing]

One thing that can be said with 100% certainty, is that the PCA won't be a stealthy B-1R.

Why would anybody think it would be?

A few of the hand wringers here, seem to believe that's what the USAF is considering, instead of something that's agile and with good kinematics.

[popcorn]

The advent of a podded 150kW- class laser will no doubt factor into the eventual design. Range and payload may trump agility and kinematics as desirable traits.

[zero-one]

I get what all of you are saying and believe me, part of me agrees.

However my gripe is that in all major wars, kinematics have had good contributions to the outcome of the fight. My opinion is that there will still be times where having good speed, acceleration and maneuverability will contribute to your overall combat effectiveness, regardless if its WVR or BVR. This is the same opinion shared by many pilots including F-35 test pilot Tom Morganfeld. (I've posted his video with that quote on other threads a few times)

Yes I know lasers may further diminish the importance of Kinematics just as HOBS has, but so far that theory isn't combat proven yet. In fact, HOBS isn't combat proven as well if I'm not mistaken. Wouldn't it be nice if PCA has the option to use all kinds of weapons effectively. (Direct Energy weapons, Missiles and guns). If one doesn't work, you can always fall back on the others. Thats what the F-22 and F-35 brings to the table.

Range is the main factor to push for PCA. But in my opinion, ADVENT and stealth tankers which are already in advanced stages of development can give current 5th gens their Pacific theater range requirements.

1. Presumably you've heard it's better to be proactive rather than reactive?

I think designing military hardware is one of the very few exceptions.

The Teen series and both 5th gens were created as responses to upcoming threats. If anything, the F-4 and F-111 were aircraft that were more "pro-active" in nature. They were mainly designed with perceived beliefs of what air combat should look like coming forward.

[madrat]

Lasers are a fair weather weapon. The Pacific has its fair share of foul weather.

[marsavian]

However my gripe is that in all major wars, kinematics have had good contributions to the outcome of the fight.

None of which contained stealth fighters. The only time stealth aircraft (bombers) were used they were never intercepted by enemy aircraft. You obviously don't feel stealth is a winning fighter strategy by itself without backup from traditional capabilities.

In fact, HOBS isn't combat proven as well if I'm not mistaken.

Ethiopian Su-27 exclusively used R-73 to down Eritrean Mig-29 after the R-27 failed.

Range is the main factor to push for PCA. But in my opinion, ADVENT and stealth tankers which are already in advanced stages of development can give current 5th gens their Pacific theater range requirements.

The Pacific distances are vast and there will never be enough range/endurance to satisfy every conceivable requirement and that doubles for the ME. No-one is saying don't buy ~2500 F-35 in order to buy PCA so I don't see what the issue is. This is about sharpening the tip of the spear not replacing its spine.

[sferrin]

Lasers are a fair weather weapon. The Pacific has its fair share of foul weather.

I definitely wouldn't want to have to depend on a laser as a primary weapon. I'd think they'd be so range-limited that stealth almost becomes pointless.

[zero-one]

None of which contained stealth fighters. The only time stealth aircraft (bombers) were used they were never intercepted by enemy aircraft. You obviously don't feel stealth is a winning fighter strategy by itself without backup from traditional capabilities.

Yes I do, because there have been times that when you take away a tried and tested capability and rely solely on capabilities that in theory should give you an advantage, painful lessons happen. Stealth is no longer monopolized and stealth on stealth means detection and engagement ranges will be reduced. I'm not saying we'll go back to dogfights.

All I'm saying is, wait for the F-22 and F-35 to prove them selves in combat first. Once you have a decent sample size of actual combat and see if Stealth really negates the need for Kinematics completely then build the PCA air to air bomber.
Because what if it doesn't. What if against the J-20 the F-22 ends up in a phone booth 3 out of 10 times.

While we wait, the money for PCA can be used to improve the F-22's range, speed up the development of Stealth tankers etc. and hopefully build more Raptors. But thats just my opinion.

[sferrin]

ll I'm saying is, wait for the F-22 and F-35 to prove them selves in combat first.

We already know it works. That's what we have exercises for. What would be the point of waiting anyway? If the F-22/35 fails does that mean you won't build PCA? If they succeed does that mean you won't build PCA? In either case, does that mean it won't be stealthy? That would be, "no, no, and no". So waiting is a pointless delay.

Once you have a decent sample size of actual combat and see if Stealth really negates the need for Kinematics completely then build the PCA air to air bomber.
Because what if it doesn't. What if against the J-20 the F-22 ends up in a phone booth 3 out of 10 times.

When has anybody ever suggested an "air to air bomber"?

While we wait, the money for PCA can be used to improve the F-22's range, speed up the development of Stealth tankers etc. and hopefully build more Raptors. But thats just my opinion.

The F-22 line is dead. It's NEVER coming back.

[krieger22]

The X-47 could have been a stealth tanker, but ultimately the MQ-25 Stingray is what we're getting. Both are still much smaller than what the USAF looks for in a tanker, though.

[disconnectedradical]

Seems like zero-one wants to paint PCA as big and unmaneuverable like a bomber to try to justify making more F-22s. He's such an F-22 fan that he'll try to bend every situation so that the F-22 airframe is the right answer.

A lot of concepts were explored in ATF days, some were also unmaneuverable, or slow.

[zero-one]

We already know it works. That's what we have exercises for. What would be the point of waiting anyway? If the F-22/35 fails does that mean you won't build PCA? If they succeed does that mean you won't build PCA? In either case, does that mean it won't be stealthy? That would be, "no, no, and no". So waiting is a pointless delay.

Exactly, thats all we have to show for it, Exercises, Pre Vietnam Simulations also showed that the Aim-7 Sparrow was supposed to have an 80% success rate. I think actual combat was closer to 11%

When has anybody ever suggested an "air to air bomber"?

Over here
https://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/sho ... sba-study/

In April 2015, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) released a report concluding that the next-generation U.S. Air Force fighter should be larger and more resembling a bomber than a small, maneuverable traditional fighter.

With the increase of air defense systems using electronic and infrared sensors and high-speed weapons, traditional designs relying on small size, high speed, and maneuverability may be less relevant and easier to intercept. As a result, the CSBA suggests building a fighter significantly larger relying on enhanced sensors, signature control, networked situational awareness, and very-long-range weapons to complete engagements before being detected or tracked. Larger planes would have greater range that would enable them to be stationed further from a combat zone, have greater radar and IR detection capabilities, and carry bigger and longer-range missiles (Long-Range Engagement Weapon).

Seems like zero-one wants to paint PCA as big and unmaneuverable like a bomber to try to justify making more F-22s. He's such an F-22 fan that he'll try to bend every situation so that the F-22 airframe is the right answer.

Keep responses in line with the discussion. Don't attack the messenger if you can't attack the message.

We had no problems when some comments here suggested that the F-35, specifically the C variant would be a good candidate as a basis for the 6th gen fighter. But how come when its the F-22 its suddenly "too obsolete". ScorpionAlpha said it perfectly. Some people are too much of F-35 fans that they purposefully downplay the strengths of the F-22 and over emphasize the F-35's capabilities to quote on quote, bend every situation to make the F-35 the right answer.

Thats why we get into long discussions when the F-22 vs F-35 topics come along where it shouldn't be that way. Scorpion1Alpha said it just as Gen. Mike Hostage said it,

The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. The latter aircraft are the kings of air to air combat. The F-35 and the F-16 are the mainstay of the air fleet, designed for both air-to-air and air-to-ground attacks.

there should really be no argument already, The F-22 is better in an A-A scenario period. But a lot of people keep twisting those words to make it seem like the F-35 can be better and is a better candidate for a 6th gen basis.

A lot of concepts were explored in ATF days, some were also unmaneuverable, or slow.

PCA has that too
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... oo-431023/

That means thinking outside the box about what the definition of a fighter might be. In the classic sense, a fighter is a short-range jet capable of flying at 9Gs, with a single seat, he says. The ECCT is emphasising range and payload, but the platform may not require 9Gs. Unlike most fighters, the PCA will not be short-range, but what space the aircraft will fit into will depend on cost and how the platform fits into the USAF’s tanker fleet. The air force also wants a stealthy signature for survivability, but also a speedy, manoeuvrable platform, he says.

Even they don't really know what they need yet. So why are they rushing to build it? Wait for combat and get a better idea of what you really need. Thats all I'm trying to say here