Navy 6th Generation Fighter

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3136
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post04 Sep 2020, 22:30

In the ‘big picture‘, the institutional Navy (with a strong assist from the so-aligned alums arrayed throughout industry) will ‘whisper‘ against anything but a clean sheet design. “Oh, that won’t work because...“

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Fights on.
Offline

wolfpak

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post04 Sep 2020, 23:20

Not only will the good old boys argue for a clean sheet design they'll up the anti on the systems it flies with to make sure the F-35 can't compete. A larger radar array up front makes sense with the decreasing RCS's of opponent aircraft and the use of the array for jamming. No matter how you slice the pie a larger array gives you more power. Think in addition you will see side arrays to give the pilot more than a 120 deg. field of view. I'm thinking maybe even a little more than 180 deg. The F-35 makes for a good modern "light attack/strike" aircraft like the A-4, A-7, and F/A-18A/C but just based on physical size can't compete in some respects to a large fighter.

The admirals will need to supply congress with some reason to keep the existing and build new carriers after noting that they're vulnerable due to the lack of range of the air wings embarked. A new longer range strike aircraft/fighter will be it. I found the Proceedings article enlightening. Think the extended air battle coupled with long range strike will be the focus of their efforts. Wonder what we'll hear from the briefings and seminars at Tailhook? Anyone remember the discussion prior to 9-11 on the sunset of the carrier? If OEF had not occurred the carrier force would be markedly smaller now. Will try to dig up an article from that period from Parameters which discussed this topic. I've found that the journals from the various war colleges to be great sources for understanding these issues. After all they act in part as think tanks.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2801
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post05 Sep 2020, 00:02

F-35C is a light attack fighter? Okay, genius.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post05 Sep 2020, 01:11

element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
element1loop wrote:Look at the range of the "sharp sword". Will the USN face a CVBG that strikes it first even if its a *crap* CV?

X-47B is a tech demonstrator. Has it been fielded?

MQ-25 - Not that stealthy. if a GJ-11 takes it down, then where lies the F-35(whatever variant?) The GJ-11 is fielded, not some theoretical F-35D.


You're making many courageous assumptions, but a mere recon drone is going to kill a carrier, and bring down the F-35's shopfront facade?


Real courage is ignoring or pretending the other side doesn't exist. Reminds me of how America couldn't believe the Japs could design a carrier fighter that could match it's fighters and called it the zero.

There's actually no courage required from flying drones. Do you even know what that drone can carry?

Worst is the assumption that the Chinese will stop there. Someone high up just mentioned something about fighting yesterday's threat...
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1557
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post05 Sep 2020, 07:02

wolfpak wrote: A larger radar array up front makes sense with the decreasing RCS's of opponent aircraft and the use of the array for jamming. No matter how you slice the pie a larger array gives you more power. Think in addition you will see side arrays to give the pilot more than a 120 deg. field of view. I'm thinking maybe even a little more than 180 deg. The F-35 makes for a good modern "light attack/strike" aircraft like the A-4, A-7, and F/A-18A/C but just based on physical size can't compete in some respects to a large fighter.


You do come up with a lot of confused nonsense.

A small stealth fighter like F-117A, for instance, was not festooned with radar panels, it was all about passive sensing, because, get this, it's a passive stealth fighter.

Likewise, F-35 is heavily biased towards very long-range passive sensing and targeting (somethign the much larger F-22A is not so ideal for), plus near real time networked regional air-picture, and a surround-vision IRST array that nothing can match so far.

Both are tiny, because, get this, they're both stealth fighters, and smaller size means lower RCS signatures from more angles or incidence, compared to a larger stealth aircraft.

Now tell me (provide an answer this time, even if it's "none that I can determine"), which US or Western strikefighter has a larger fully fueled weapons payload than F-35C?

Could you please also layout what tactical A2A and A2G areas the F-35A/C is impaired or allegedly inferior, to with respect to your alternative more ideal and larger stealth fighter option? Preferably one that doesn't constantly pour RF energy into the airspace and act as a missile magnet.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1557
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post05 Sep 2020, 07:16

weasel1962 wrote:
element1loop wrote:You're making many courageous assumptions, but a mere recon drone is going to kill a carrier, and bring down the F-35's shopfront facade?


Real courage is ignoring or pretending the other side doesn't exist. Reminds me of how America couldn't believe the Japs could design a carrier fighter that could match it's fighters and called it the zero. There's actually no courage required from flying drones. Do you even know what that drone can carry? Worst is the assumption that the Chinese will stop there. Someone high up just mentioned something about fighting yesterday's threat...


Apologies for not responding with sufficient horror to the Chinese analogue of an RQ-170 on a carrier deck.

weasel1962 wrote:Do you even know what that drone can carry?


Do you? No, you don't. But you seem to be impressed by the 3D fantasy art work imagery of what it could carry. Is that what's driving such foreboding?

But you disparage the LO potential of MQ-25A, and discount the fact that refuel pods and pylons can be removed, plus that it was also designed with a flexible internal bay payload in mind, and will have a very long range in such a configuration.

So rather than the stuff about decadent nicknaming of Zeros, and lamenting my haughty complacency, we could just keep things in proportion.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post05 Sep 2020, 13:47

element1loop wrote:Apologies for not responding with sufficient horror to the Chinese analogue of an RQ-170 on a carrier deck.


are you claiming the RQ-170 has internal weapons bays?

element1loop wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Do you even know what that drone can carry?


Do you? No, you don't. But you seem to be impressed by the 3D fantasy art work imagery of what it could carry. Is that what's driving such foreboding?]


Don't recall posting or citing 3D fantasy art work of any kind. Not sure what fantasies you are referring to. What I do note is twin weapons bays and 4400 lbs payload. Let's continue to pretend the PLA doesn't have any antiship missiles of that category.

element1loop wrote:But you disparage the LO potential of MQ-25A, and discount the fact that refuel pods and pylons can be removed, plus that it was also designed with a flexible internal bay payload in mind, and will have a very long range in such a configuration.


Not sure where the disparaging happened. If you actually note the MQ-25A thread, wasn't it you who mentioned what happened if they put a tank and a pod on the UAV and what would happen to its RCS?

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=53122&start=75

If you happen to note my comments on the later pages, I'm not the one arguing its not LO.

element1loop wrote:So rather than the stuff about decadent nicknaming of Zeros, and lamenting my haughty complacency, we could just keep things in proportion.


Actually, don't get me wrong. I don't think the GJ-11 is some kind of counter-F-35 secret weapon. Not even close. What I'm saying is that the Chinese are developing technologies that shouldn't be underestimated. The US needs to avoid group think in assuming the F-35 is the invincible weapon that will win all wars for the next 40 years.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4157
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post05 Sep 2020, 14:27

I think I know where this "light fighters are inferior to medium fighters, which are inferior to heavy fighters" mentality comes from: Pro Russian boards..

For example, the site militarywatch is a pro-Russian propoganda site. Virtually every article you read there cites the fact heavyweight fighters are far superior to those in "lighter weight classes". Thus, the Flanker is superior to.... almost everything. Of course, it's just a coincidence Russia today flies almost exclusively heavyweight fighter platforms. So if you're a Russian client state or propspective buyer, you want.... Russian fighters. Bigger is better. See how that works? :)

There is some passing lip service given to the fact light fighters are cheaper, easier to maintain and in general, have a lower all around operational cost. Buy boy, do they love their Flankers, Mig-31's and (former) Foxbats. They speak of the F-14 with reverance. Even 40 year old Iranian Tomcats, LOL. When it's convenient though (as in the case of the Mig-35), they'll point out the fact that although it's a medium fighter, it "punches above its weight", LOL and thus... it's a GREAT buy. Much better than those delicate Americanski jets that are so expenive.

The F-35 could be classed as a featherweight for all I care. Any aircraft that can sling AMRAAM's/AIM-260's or 9x's without being seen.... is the one I want to be in. I'll finish with a great analogy... 6'0" 180lbs (maybe) Hoyce Gracie defeats 6'8" 400+lb Akeebono. Didn't last 3 minutes, and you needn't understand Japanese to "get it"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POJ2T02 ... el=MMAARIV

I train at one of Hoyce's schools, and have met him several times. Actually, he presented me with my blue belt. Maybe 180, maybe... Humble man too, especially for all of his accomplishments.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2801
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post05 Sep 2020, 15:22

Royce isn't a good anology because he's always fought at light heavyweight.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post05 Sep 2020, 20:22

madrat wrote:F-35C is a light attack fighter? Okay, genius.


I know right. All those other > 70,000 lb MTOW light attack fighters out there.

I think the F-14D was about the only Navy fighter in living memory to exceed
that MTOW and that was after a re-engining that provided a > 50% bump in thrust.

And if you are comparing the F-35C to Russian naval fighters it has far greater MTOW
than the Su-33 or MiG-29K.

Even a modest revamp of the F-35C in terms of weapons/fuel capacity would probably
put it close to the carrier tested EMALS limit of 80,000 lbs (GA claims to have done 100,000 lbs
in the full scale test facility so YMMV).
Offline

wolfpak

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post06 Sep 2020, 03:03

I still maintain that the F-35C is a light attack jet. It has only one engine and fills the roles of the previous light attack jets. It is being assigned to the units that historically had that mission. Even the modexes are 3XX and 4XX. The 340 or so aircraft being bought equates to 2 squadrons per carrier no more. Would have thought by now if it was to be the main fighter in the air wings you would see them at least plan to have a few traditional fighter units like VFA-31 or VFA-2 equip with them? Both medium attack, A-6 and heavy attack, A-3 and A-5 had two engines.

What's interesting is that I have yet to see in any L-M or Navy charts, graphics, etc. depict the F-35C (or the F-35B for that matter) performing the Deck Launch Intercept or BAR CAP missions? Usually someone publishes a mission profile graphic that shows radius of action, loiter time, fly out speed, etc.. Nor have I seen any photos of Beast loadouts of AIM-120's like those you have seen on F/A-18C/D's, F/A-18E/F's, F-15C's on actual aircraft. I don't think the number of AIM-120's per external station has even been defined?

The problem the Navy faces is that our adversaries will have the capability to launch carrier killing weapons from bomber aircraft similar to the threat that resulted in the F-14 and Phoenix. We will need a larger fighter like the Tomcat or Phantom that can either launch and supercruise to an intercept point or remain on station long enough to shoot down threats before they get near the battle group.

The F-35 was conceived and built after the demise of the Soviet Union when it was thought that the air intercept mission was gone and the Aegis system would provide all the defensive capability the CBG would need. Now we face a threat that can outrange the Aegis system by using bombers (H-6) to launch long range antishipping missiles which may be by the 2030's hypersonic ones. The imperative is to kill the bomber before it launches them. To this end we'll need a fighter with better kinetic and radar performance than the F-35 possesses. Combat radius will need to exceed the standoff range of the cruise missiles launched from the enemy's bombers.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2801
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post06 Sep 2020, 03:18

Sounds like revisionist history. F-35C development has always lagged significantly behind F-35B and F-35A. It has beenn a no nonsense approach with a relaxed timescale for F-35C integration because not a single carrier is ready to deploy them on an operational level. Maybe they should have a carrier ready to operate them rather than worry about pushing them out too soon.

F-35C will enhance the situational awareness of the entire task force yet you believe it is somehow less capable. Crazy talk.
Offline

talkitron

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post06 Sep 2020, 03:24

The Navy does seem fixated on securing money for the Super Hornet Block III and the next generation fighter, so they do not write effusively about the merits of the F-35C. That will change a little once the F-35C deploys on carriers.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post06 Sep 2020, 06:55

wolfpak wrote:I still maintain that the F-35C is a light attack jet. It has only one engine and fills the roles of the previous light attack jets. It is being assigned to the units that historically had that mission. Even the modexes are 3XX and 4XX. The 340 or so aircraft being bought equates to 2 squadrons per carrier no more. Would have thought by now if it was to be the main fighter in the air wings you would see them at least plan to have a few traditional fighter units like VFA-31 or VFA-2 equip with them? Both medium attack, A-6 and heavy attack, A-3 and A-5 had two engines.


What light attack jet has pylons for 5000 lb stores? That makes the Super Hornet what...a lighter attack aircraft?
This is nonsense. I'm not even sure if the A-5 or A-6 could even carry 5000 lb stores.

wolfpak wrote:What's interesting is that I have yet to see in any L-M or Navy charts, graphics, etc. depict the F-35C (or the F-35B for that matter) performing the Deck Launch Intercept or BAR CAP missions? Usually someone publishes a mission profile graphic that shows radius of action, loiter time, fly out speed, etc.. Nor have I seen any photos of Beast loadouts of AIM-120's like those you have seen on F/A-18C/D's, F/A-18E/F's, F-15C's on actual aircraft. I don't think the number of AIM-120's per external station has even been defined?


And you haven't seen depictions of the F/A-18s or F-15Cs carrying hypersonic weapons either. But we have
with the F-35C.

McAir did these publicity shots for their products; it's completely unrepresentative of actual loadouts.


wolfpak wrote:The problem the Navy faces is that our adversaries will have the capability to launch carrier killing weapons from bomber aircraft similar to the threat that resulted in the F-14 and Phoenix. We will need a larger fighter like the Tomcat or Phantom that can either launch and supercruise to an intercept point or remain on station long enough to shoot down threats before they get near the battle group.


The Navy was moving towards long range intercept via ship-based missiles with the aircraft merely
facilitating the forward pass or acting as the relay. We've seen that with the F-35 mediated SM-6 intercept.

wolfpak wrote:The F-35 was conceived and built after the demise of the Soviet Union when it was thought that the air intercept mission was gone and the Aegis system would provide all the defensive capability the CBG would need.


So all of that investment in integrating fighter aircraft with CEC and NIFCA over the last couple of decades
was focused on what? Anti-surface warfare?!

wolfpak wrote: Combat radius will need to exceed the standoff range of the cruise missiles launched from the enemy's bombers.


This is a losing proposition since increasing the range of the cruise missile is incrementally *much* easier for Red.
JASSM-ER is a getting a nice range bump to JASSM-XR for very little money in R&D and procurement.
Offline

h-bomb

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 324
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
  • Location: South Central USA

Unread post07 Sep 2020, 02:57

wolfpak wrote:I still maintain that the F-35C is a light attack jet. It has only one engine and fills the roles of the previous light attack jets. It is being assigned to the units that historically had that mission. Even the modexes are 3XX and 4XX. The 340 or so aircraft being bought equates to 2 squadrons per carrier no more. Would have thought by now if it was to be the main fighter in the air wings you would see them at least plan to have a few traditional fighter units like VFA-31 or VFA-2 equip with them? Both medium attack, A-6 and heavy attack, A-3 and A-5 had two engines.


Wow that would be news to F-105 pilots that they are A-4 equivalents aircraft. Since Alienia advertises the M-346F as a fighter and it has twin engines, it is the equivalent of the F-14, F-15, Su-27 and family?? The F-5 too.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 31 guests