Lockheed to offer Japan advanced F-22 F-35 hybrid?

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

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4526
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 05:22

marsavian wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:PCA is not '6th-gen', some of the early public discussions of the PCA concept said the discussion of a 'generational' paradigm was "unhelpful" in determining what PCA will require in order to get its job done in the best way. Discussion of the jet in the context of a generational template or stereotype was discounted and discouraged. Which makes sense.


The Penetrating Counter Air Fighter (PCA) is a full "generation" ahead of the current F-22 and F-35. Which, are classified at 5th Generation Fighters. So, that clearly makes it a 6th Generation Fighter. Honestly, don't see that label as being "unhelpful" in any respect.


Generations have to be defined by well defined characteristics not chronology as no-one considers the much later Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen/Super Hornet/Su-35 as anything other than 4th generation aircraft apart from their enthusiastic salesmen and fans, add as many + as you like you are not really fooling anyone. The point about broadband stealth is that it has already been done in 5th generation, the B-2, so that is not going to be a sixth generation characteristic as it is just an evolved variation of a 5th gen theme and anyway with judicious use of RAM current tailed 5th gen aircraft don't have bad broadband stealth.

I have no doubt the PCA will probably be the best 5th gen aircraft ever created but it will be the Omega of 5th gens not the Alpha of 6th gen. 6th generation will in all likelihood be usable production hypersonic aircraft because when you have aircraft flying as fast as the missiles designed to shoot them down, or even faster, you have entered a new paradigm of air to air fighting which will require radically new tactics and weapons to counter.

Hypersonic aircraft will not make offensive stealthy attack aircraft obsolete though as you still have to be detected to be intercepted so there will be military overlap as there is now with 4th and 5th gens, the F-35 will still be a good strike aircraft in this era if not detected. 6th gen will just add a radically improved performance profile to an aircraft characteristics, in this case kinematic if hypersonic.


Please......... :doh:
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1934
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 06:14

You will sortie 16 subsonic aircraft for one hypersonic aircraft.
Offline

knowan

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 14:05

Anti-aircraft Laser weapons will likely be around before hypersonic aircraft, and at that point their speed isn't going to make them harder to hit.
Offline

marsavian

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 306
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 16:15

What will be the effective range of these laser weapons and good luck on trying to achieving this effective distance with a plane twice as fast as you.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2330
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 16:22

"To get high speed and good maneuverability is not something you can do with F-22 airframe, you need clean sheet design."

This really struck me as odd. The Raptor defines high speed and good maneuverability. Did you mean something else, vs. say the more literal translation?

I think the point here about destroying aircraft on the ground (as part of air dominance) an excellent one. Lots of people are envisioning PCA as the ultimate super-cruising, sensor packed, long range, VLO BVR killer. When you add an air to ground component, the formula changes. You'll need an even bigger airframe to carry sufficient numbers of air to air and air to ground weapons. Yet, isn't the F-35 ideally suited to the air to ground mission? There are going to be thousands of them, so one would think they'll be tasked with that mission.

And just think of the added cost, not to mention qualifying of the air to ground stuff on PCA.

In the end though, we're all just speculating. As was mentioned prior, we don't know what formal requirements the Air Force is going to issue. Tough to design an aircraft the customer hasn't set specifications for yet. I hope I live to see it, or at least the prototypes. The F-22 truncated order was hard to stomach, although it is exciting to see the F-35 come online.

There will be no hybrid however, of that much I am certain..
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1580
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 16:51

^^
Yeah I think he meat range.
Admittedly Range isn't one of the F-22's strong suits. Even though it's Combat Radius of ~500 NM is pretty respectable in the fighter community. I like the idea of having an F-22/35 Hybrid but I agree that answering the Range problem will be the biggest hurdle.

Here's what I think, if an ADVENT version of the F-119 can be made, doh wait, that already exist, albeit in prototype stage ( YF-120) and using F-35 avionics which take up far less space than than the current F-22 hardware, I believe the F-22 can be made to carry substantially more fuel. ADVENT alone is said to increase range by 25 - 30% so we're looking at a combat radius of around 700 NM. With more Fuel maybe we can punch up to 800 NM.

Yes I know its not enough for the Pacific Theater. As I posted many times above, both LM and the USAF think that fighter combat maneuverability still has it's place in the future network centric battlefield. My problem is I don't believe you can combine Extreme Bomber class range with Extreme fighter class maneuverability.

You will still need Tankers, so the goal shouldn't be to eliminate the need for tankers but simply to minimize the reliance on tankers.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 570
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Irvine, CA

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 17:59

Yes I mean range. Combine long range with high speed and maneuverability will need clean sheet design. Something with a lot more fuel in the design. ADVENT itself isn’t enough to make up for the lack of range. There’s also problem of small weapon bay. With F-22 there is not much space left.
Offline

lrrpf52

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2018, 01:52

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 23:17

PCA is a next generation integrated technologies system.

Propulsion is entirely different than the 5th Gen motors, even though the baseline for it was developed in the 1980s with the YF120 GE motor.

Airframe has to be completely different due to the thermal loading and aerodynamics needed for hypersonic speeds, with hypersonic generally being characterized as Mach 5+.

The weapon system is going to be completely different, with direct energy being the stated medium of energy transfer, versus missiles.

The idea that these are incremental 5th generation technologies is really a stretch.
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 552
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 01:27

Well the AF isn’t interested

Air Force not considering new F-15 or hybrid F-22/F-35, top civilian says

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... lian-says/
Offline

weasel1962

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 938
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 02:57

zerion wrote:Well the AF isn’t interested

Air Force not considering new F-15 or hybrid F-22/F-35, top civilian says

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... lian-says/


The key words are "at the current moment". Where PCA is concerned, its going to be a long time before it happens.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 762
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 03:52

zero-one wrote:^^
Yeah I think he meat range.
Admittedly Range isn't one of the F-22's strong suits. Even though it's Combat Radius of ~500 NM is pretty respectable in the fighter community. I like the idea of having an F-22/35 Hybrid but I agree that answering the Range problem will be the biggest hurdle.

Here's what I think, if an ADVENT version of the F-119 can be made, doh wait, that already exist, albeit in prototype stage ( YF-120) and using F-35 avionics which take up far less space than than the current F-22 hardware, I believe the F-22 can be made to carry substantially more fuel. ADVENT alone is said to increase range by 25 - 30% so we're looking at a combat radius of around 700 NM. With more Fuel maybe we can punch up to 800 NM.

Yes I know its not enough for the Pacific Theater. As I posted many times above, both LM and the USAF think that fighter combat maneuverability still has it's place in the future network centric battlefield. My problem is I don't believe you can combine Extreme Bomber class range with Extreme fighter class maneuverability.

You will still need Tankers, so the goal shouldn't be to eliminate the need for tankers but simply to minimize the reliance on tankers.



The easy (easier), faster and much cheaper option is F-35'D', with variable-cycle engine which especially emphasizes gains at high-speed and high-altitude (for range purposes, not just for fighting, as such) plus F-35C's wing on the D for better high-alt stability loaded, plus a conformal tank over the upper wing blended 'roots', and further evolved sensors and software-defined capabilities (as will develop anyway). A few countries would certainly be interested in operating that sort of variant (Japan and Australia for two).

Most of the need for some faster deeper VLO Strike/BVR is thus covered.

Or at least it's a good interim compromise (with respect to a PCA type jet role) as a maturing of other tech/propulsion to make the PCA type option work occurs (given today's remarks indicate PCA development may be on the back-burner for the time being, as the F-35 build occupies the prime focus ... viewtopic.php?f=22&t=54447&p=401667#p401667 ).

If an F-35D did that well enough, a PCA may remain on the back-burner for longer, which is also a good thing, why go early to crystallizing a capability or platform, if you don't need to yet? Plus better F-35 weapons may be able to take up the PCA strike slack in the interim, at far cheaper cost, and fielded sooner.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial-Dist = LIFE
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 762
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 04:02

lrrpf52 wrote:The idea that these are incremental 5th generation technologies is really a stretch.


The PCA conception was sold from the beginning as a rapid-prototype airframe that's an evolution of existing tech in order to speed the rate of development and production with an eye on 2029 service entry.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial-Dist = LIFE
Offline

weasel1962

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 938
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 06:50

I think its good to relook at how PCA unfolded. 2017 PCA study was actually done by USAF scientific advisory board (SAB) which studied the possibility of a PCA aircraft to be implemented by 2030. What the SAB does is to advise and provide information/options to the USAF. It is not the USAF that is selling or planning to implement the PCA for a 2029 service entry.

The current statement by the USAF should be read in that context.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4526
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 06:57

zerion wrote:Well the AF isn’t interested

Air Force not considering new F-15 or hybrid F-22/F-35, top civilian says

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... lian-says/



I've been saying this about both the F-15X and the so-called F-22/F-35 Hybrid for sometime now. Yet, the local expert know more!

:lmao:
Offline

knowan

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 08:07

marsavian wrote:What will be the effective range of these laser weapons and good luck on trying to achieving this effective distance with a plane twice as fast as you.


Specific distances are unknown, but charts I posted some pages back say 'long-range' for anti-aircraft usage with a few hundred kW lasers, while megawatt range lasers are capable against ballistic missiles and other hypersonic targets at long range.
Lasers of that power are unlikely to be used onboard tactical aircraft anytime soon, but Navy ships and land installations will likely have weapons of that power in the coming decades.

Given such lasers are effective anti-missile weapons too, there might be some significant changes to air and missile warfare when such weapons become widespread.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests