zero-one wrote:Still early but there are some proposals going around that I don't agree with.
This was what I was afraid of. A lumbering slow moving target that needs to rely on standoff weapons and escorts. If we're talking about going into operation in the 2060 time line to replace the F-22. Then this thing will most likely go up against upgraded variants of the J-20 and other stealth platforms which will also be VLO and will be faster and more maneuverable than it.
It may be just the need to publish a catchy entry, but the statements they have gathered indeed sound like if USAF had desisted from getting PCA, maybe it was not realistic, given the speed at which rival air forces are progressing too. Per-piece prices mentioned were insane and on the other hand, the requirement to develop and field it fast were also not credible. Even worse, they may end up with something already obsolete before entering operation, since the progress in unmanned aviation is so fast currently that it is difficult to know what will be possible in 15 years time. I would say technical possibilities are well ahead of operational doctrine and so, if AFs are in need to deploy UCAVs, they should be capable of shortened schedules. But getting advanced planes developed in three years as they are demanding is a pipe dream, unless the plane is some kind of standardised platform and hence not really optimized for performance. Maybe AI-boosted design can manage a breakthrough here, we don't know.
Why take a platform that is optimized for the strike role and spend truck loads of money "heavily modifying" it to fulfill an air to air role.
I know I'll be labeled a fanboy for this, but whatever. I think an F-22 will require less modifications to modernize and to restart production.
I tend to agree too, since they seem to ditch an advanced new platform, they will need to update F-22, but this may in fact be a better idea than wasting hundreds of billions in the next technological wonder that ends up being not so good and not so cheap, ten years late. Engine should be changed to an adaptive version of the F119, maybe some CFTs are developed, AAMs need a serious update, maintenance needs should be lowered. And if they are to be the pillar of US air power, then a restart of the production is a must I would say. It will maybe not support wet dreams about absolute air dominance but this is also good since it will reinforce restrain and diplomacy, which are way cheaper and more effective in the long run. F-15C is still a beast with its extremely light construction, I would not just retire it but rather give it some serious engines and avionics too.
mixelflick wrote:And I'm concerned too this is going the way of the flying wing. Great solution for bombers, tankers and perhaps transport aircraft. Not so good for fighters IMO. Has there ever been an effective, standalone flying wing fighter platform?
None that I can recall, and I rather doubt Russia's Hunter drone will be the first...
Okhotnik is not a fighter, at least that I know, and frankly I would be surprised if an aircraft with this design can perform that role effectively. To me it is an intelligence and strike platform to spare manned platforms (and crews!) the attrition of fighting within high end ADs. This approach makes sense for any air force and for US too. So, they will probably keep the current fighter fleet and upgrade it as much as they can while they keep adding U(C)AVs to the mix. The concept of the big flying wing with intelligence and A2A capabilities seems to be also acknowledged in Russia, PAK-DA seems to go that way too. This is reasonable, but it doesn't sound as optimist or rather triumphalist as PCA did. It is a more sober (and IMHO realistic) approach to use UCAVs than ultra-expensive manned platforms.
15 Dec 2015, 19:19
