tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post8322513168082215495..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Next Generation FighterComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-86778976016723290752015-02-07T13:28:46.883-08:002015-02-07T13:28:46.883-08:00TA, the original F-14 contract in 1969 was for $12...TA, the original F-14 contract in 1969 was for $12M per ($77M in 2014 dollars). That quickly increased to around $20M in 1971 ($116M in 2014). <br /><br />The oft quoted cost is $38M in 1998 dollars ($55M in 2014). I'd take this one with a huge grain of salt as I suspect it's some kind of averaged cost over the program and, if so, wouldn't be relevant.<br /><br />A couple of things to note,<br /><br />1. The F-14 inflation adjusted costs are still below the F-35.<br />2. The F-14 costs were buying a functioning aircraft unlike the F-35 costs, at the moment.<br />3. The F-14D model costs are roughly comparable to the F-35 low end costs but the D represented the ultimate evolution of the Tomcat whereas the $155M of the F-35 represents a non-combat capable version at the begining of its development.<br /><br />Numbers aside, your point about nostalgia is quite right!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47319569964869169632015-02-07T11:54:53.548-08:002015-02-07T11:54:53.548-08:00Nostalgia isn't what it used to be...
If you ...Nostalgia isn't what it used to be...<br /><br />If you take the August 1971 LIFE Magazine article "How many millions should an f-14 cost?, you could replace F-14 with F-35 and republish today it as JSF critique. Same arguments: too expensive, way too complex, unproven tech, not what the Navy needs... The A model was $43M in '83 - roughly $105M today; the D was $77M in '88 - $155M today. That's F-22 price tag in current year dollars.<br /><br />Eventually the Tomcat came to be loved in its time, and revered in retrospect. <br /><br />V/r TATrons Awayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03047296879125469643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68780947242067779452015-02-07T11:25:32.132-08:002015-02-07T11:25:32.132-08:00We had both strikers and fighters back when we wer...We had both strikers and fighters back when we were spending 10% of GDP on defense and could afford multiple, simultaneous development programs.<br /><br />Stealth is proven technology. APG-77 is proven. F135s will be proven, eventually. I'd steal the cockpit and avionics from the F-35, just scaled up. <br /><br />I'm all for using proven technology. In fact, I don't want to design anything new here, other than the airframe. I want to bake in reserve weight, space, cooling and power, though, for technologies which may become proven of the FA-XX's lifetime.<br /><br />If we're going to build a large aircraft anyway, the incremental cost of making it a good striker is not high. The best way to destroy an enemy's air force is on the ground. Pure fighters are largely worthless once the enemy IADS is down. All fighters need to be multi-role.<br /><br />The F-14 made a very good bomber. So did the F-15. The F-22 is our primary penetrating fighter bomber now, replacing the F-117, even with its limited internal payload. Many other good fighters have historically been good strikers too. <br /><br />IMHO, an ideal future CAW would be something like 24 large FA-XXs and 48 multi-role UCAVs. All of which can strike. All of which can contribute to OCA/DCA. <br /><br />The bays of an FB-22-sized FA-XX, in theory, could house a pair of GBU-28s, giving the CAW a stealthy, deep penetration strike capability it doesn't have today. It could also carry air-launched PAC-3s internally, giving it a potential boost-phase ABM capability.<br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49165976688304660622015-02-07T09:33:11.899-08:002015-02-07T09:33:11.899-08:00"... already looking at large aircraft."..."... already looking at large aircraft."<br /><br />I agree and I'm all for it.<br /><br />"Given the limited number of deck spots on a carrier, and the cost of buying both strikers and pure fighters, we just can't afford to build single role aircraft."<br /><br />This is where you and fundamentally differ. We can afford both and we have in the past (A-6, F-14). What we have to stop doing is making every aircraft a monument to Star Wars. We need to return to making solid, capable aircraft using PROVEN technology. If we do that, they will be affordable. We can leave the Star Wars to the AF.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14390420099181678122015-02-07T09:20:04.314-08:002015-02-07T09:20:04.314-08:00CNO,
The problem is, if you want a manned, pure A...CNO,<br /><br />The problem is, if you want a manned, pure A2A aircraft that has sufficient range to keep the carrier out of trouble, and a big enough radar, you are already looking at large aircraft. Fuel has to go somewhere and is heavy. APG-77 class radars are big. <br /><br />Some examples of aircraft that started out as more-or-less pure A2A fighters include the F-15, Su-27, and F-22. All are big aircraft. <br /><br />If we had the foresight to make the F-22 <i>slightly</i> larger, it could've carried the full range of ordinance meant for the F-35, with only a marginally higher cost.<br /><br />Given the limited number of deck spots on a carrier, and the cost of buying both strikers <i>and</i> pure fighters, we just can't afford to build single role aircraft. <br /><br /><br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14025314026185727472015-02-07T09:08:02.283-08:002015-02-07T09:08:02.283-08:00John, I suspect you're right on the money abou...John, I suspect you're right on the money about the optionally manned rationale. Good observation.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83051216035095895572015-02-07T09:06:22.059-08:002015-02-07T09:06:22.059-08:00"IMHO, F/A-XX should be a big, two seat, twin..."IMHO, F/A-XX should be a big, two seat, twin-engine fighter with a high fuel fraction, good all around stealth, and good kinematics."<br /><br />"In short, I don't want to break any new ground. Just catch up with technology that already exists ..."<br /><br />Well, we find ourselves in substantial agreement though with entirely different rationales. Interesting.<br /><br />The problem is cost. What you're describing would be $200M-$300M in today's dollars, I believe. If so, that puts the acquisition numbers for the Navy in the 100 range and because of the low numbers the operating and maintenance costs would skyrocket. With numbers that small, what will be the aircraft that would fill the other 350 or so combat airwing spots?<br /><br />Here's where we differ. My vision for such an aircraft is as a pure air superiority fighter. I believe you have a different mission in mind. Odd that we get to much the same end point!<br /><br />We have to give such an aircraft only what it absolutely needs and no more or it will not be affordable. Room for a laser? That would be great but it will cost more. Upgraded DAS/EOTS? Maybe but only if that is ABSOLUTELY needed for an air superiority role. Room for bombs? No, though providing room for A2A weapons may confer room for bombs. Jamming suite and DIRCMS? Only if they're completely proven (they aren't yet) and affordable.<br /><br />The Navy needs a plane that is lethal but not breathtaking. Breathtaking would be great but is unaffordable. Let the AF do breathtaking.<br /><br />Your concept of a cross between an F-22 and F-14 meets my needs as long as the technology is ABSOLUTELY proven - no development. The only development would be systems integration and even then only to the extent necessary to operate the individual components. None of the this-aircraft-can-utilize-any-sensor-or-weapon-anywhere-in-the-world crap. No controlling other platforms - if we want a UAV controller, let's build a simple, dedicated UAV control aircraft. No ISR for the fleet - if we want ISR let's build a dedicated ISR aircraft.<br /><br />So, I'm largely with you but for all the wrong reasons, I suspect!<br /><br />It's all about numbers which means it's all about cost.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51737903617296090422015-02-07T09:03:34.184-08:002015-02-07T09:03:34.184-08:00I've seen "full-spectrum dominance" ...I've seen "full-spectrum dominance" used in cases that definitely aren't about EW. The term seems to come from a slight mangling of <br /><br />"full-spectrum superiority — The cumulative effect of dominance in the air, land, maritime, and space domains and information environment (which includes cyberspace) that permits the conduct of joint operations without effective opposition or prohibitive interference. (JP 3-0)"<br /><br />That's from "Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms", which is here: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf<br /><br />The reason for "optionally manned" aircraft is very simple and political: it tries to get both the "Pilots are important!" and the "Drones are the answer to everything" constituencies backing the project. John Dallmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01184719865727491672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78604664726874875092015-02-07T06:41:27.785-08:002015-02-07T06:41:27.785-08:00The USAF could buy it, just like they bought the F...The USAF could buy it, just like they bought the F-4. Unclear if they would. They could reduce the end of the F-35 buy to pay for it. <br /><br />As far as the Navy paying for it, this wouldn't happen until well after the F-35 buy finishes. <br /><br />It would be expensive, but it is what the Navy needs. The flying walrus F-35C is fine as a striker, but will struggle in A2A. Same goes for the draggy, low T/Wt, unstealthy, short-legged Super Hornet.<br /><br />Neither will have the power, cooling, weight or space margins for a laser weapon.<br /><br />The only other option that has the potential to be cheaper is a multi-role UCAV. But as CNO has amply pointed out, we need a backup mechanism if comms are denied. This big, two seat FA-XX, with similar range as the UCAV, could act as a controller.<br /><br />Hopefully by not trying to break new ground, we can reign in R&D costs. <br /><br />A pair of F135s produce 56,000lbs thrust dry, 86,000lbs thrust, reheated. A 48,000lb empty FA-XX, with 34,000lbs internal fuel and 3,600lbs of A2A munitions and pilots would still have a 1:1 T/Wt ratio with full fuel. <br /><br />34,000lbs of fuel is F-111-class. Combat radius could be on the order of 1000-1300nm or more. That would allow the carrier to stay on the fringe or outside of DF-21D range. <br /><br />A land-based variant could fly from Guam and hit targets on mainland China, or fly coastal CAP sorties, with just one outbound and return refueling. <br /><br />This is the type of capability both the USAF and Navy need. 3-500nm radius fighters just place too much strain on tankers, and force their orbits to be too close to the enemy. B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35636899181825715462015-02-07T06:40:08.225-08:002015-02-07T06:40:08.225-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-66006569399162206932015-02-06T19:56:49.914-08:002015-02-06T19:56:49.914-08:00"IMHO, F/A-XX should be a big, two seat, twin..."IMHO, F/A-XX should be a big, two seat, twin-engine fighter with a high fuel fraction, good all around stealth, and good kinematics. It should have a nose large enough for a big randome (APG-77 class), and room inside for 2 x 2000lb class munitions plus AAMs or a large number of smaller munitions.<br /><br />Essentially we need a cross between an F-22 and an F-14. We can drop in adaptive engines later. To start, use two growth F135s or F119s. I wouldn't mind it being a bit bigger, say between F-22 and FB-22 sized."<br /><br /> I like it B.Smitty but when you look at something the size of an F14 and bigger than an F22, it's going to be mighty expensive! This isn't going to be used by USAF or anyone else, right? So production is only for USN which is going to be relatively small so the price is going to be horrendous..... I'm not sure with new carriers, new boomers,etc how this survives inside USN budget.....NICOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14567491909555759918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11829567812251709262015-02-06T13:44:21.541-08:002015-02-06T13:44:21.541-08:00I really think not having F-22 level all-aspects s...I really think not having F-22 level all-aspects stealth hurts its capabilities a lot. It can't be an F-117 like penetrator. It has to go back to old-school IADS rollback. It can't even lob shots at high end SAM batteries and expect to get away. B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4266563957308993782015-02-06T12:58:41.360-08:002015-02-06T12:58:41.360-08:00I like alot of that.
I do admit I'd rather b...I like alot of that. <br /><br />I do admit I'd rather be closer to the F-14 than the F-22. If only for budget sake. If we can give it decent front aspect stealth, I think that would be good enough. <br /><br />I do think speed and maneuverability are still important too. <br /><br />We need to be able to afford this thing in some numbers. And we need to re-create some abilities we've lost: ASW aircraft and dedicated tanking. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-13434534680529791932015-02-06T11:58:02.368-08:002015-02-06T11:58:02.368-08:00Given the military's recent history, I'm j...Given the military's recent history, I'm just glad they didn't require a Romulan cloaking device...JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-66630735214903055012015-02-06T07:03:04.765-08:002015-02-06T07:03:04.765-08:00IMHO, F/A-XX should be a big, two seat, twin-engin...IMHO, F/A-XX should be a big, two seat, twin-engine fighter with a high fuel fraction, good all around stealth, and good kinematics. It should have a nose large enough for a big randome (APG-77 class), and room inside for 2 x 2000lb class munitions plus AAMs or a large number of smaller munitions (SDB, GBU-38/54, CUDA).<br /><br />Essentially we need a cross between an F-22 and an F-14. We can drop in adaptive engines later. To start, use two growth F135s or F119s. I wouldn't mind it being a bit bigger, say between F-22 and FB-22 sized. <br /><br />It should have room for a self protection jamming suite and laser DIRCMS. <br /><br />It needs an upgraded DAS/EOTS suite and improvements in emitter location. <br /><br />We need to evaluate whether a useful laser weapon will be viable during F/A-XX's lifetime. If so, may need to reserve space for it. It has the potential to be a game changer. The space can be used for an EW variant as well.<br /><br />Optional manning is not an immediate need, IMHO. It can be added later.<br /><br />Two seats are necessary for effective use as a controller of UCAVs as well as an EW aircraft.<br /><br />In short, I don't want to break any new ground. Just catch up with technology that already exists and provide a large enough platform for future growth. <br /><br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61264980047700563002015-02-06T04:29:56.947-08:002015-02-06T04:29:56.947-08:00Adaptive engines should be considered separately f...Adaptive engines should be considered separately from FA-XX, IMHO. You can drop them in at a later date. <br /><br />The problem with all 5th Gen designs to date is that they tried to push too many areas too far. Let's try something different, dial it back, and use proven systems and concepts with room for growth.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91192101393181243692015-02-05T22:59:49.737-08:002015-02-05T22:59:49.737-08:00The advanced adaptive engine will be the heart of ...The advanced adaptive engine will be the heart of any 6G design. Its really the game changer as far as FAXX is concerned. Being able to switch between high bypass, high velocity thrust, and basically ram/scramjet. And its not as super duper future tech as you seem to think. The heart of the AAE is basically taking the SR71 engines, lowering cost, increasing reliability, and increasing variability. atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37103665980008484142015-02-05T22:55:27.731-08:002015-02-05T22:55:27.731-08:00Just as a point of where we actually are with auto...Just as a point of where we actually are with autonomous aircraft...<br /><br />Autonomous aircraft can take off and land independently even on carriers.<br />Autonomous aircraft can do A2A refueling.<br />Autonomous aircraft can do multiple path flight plans.<br />Autonomous aircraft can do strike missions (though we don't currently let them do it).<br />Autonomous aircraft can que and track much better than humans and there is significant work and demonstrations wrt cooperative computer/human combat.<br /><br />Autonomous aircraft currently cannot do 3D A2A combat but they are getting there. And they will eventually get as good if not better than humans.<br /><br />And the primary goal for the initial unmanned aspect isn't that they'll be doing dedicated A2A combat. Its that we'll use the autonomous unmanned capabilities for things that are mundane, too risky, or quit frankly human pilots really don't want to do.atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78179072142439907102015-02-05T22:45:32.579-08:002015-02-05T22:45:32.579-08:00Roger, part of the autonomy is likely not having t...Roger, part of the autonomy is likely not having to baby sit the EW/Sensors as much. Let the computers handle the mundane, let the pilot/secondary pilot handle the difficult stuff. <br /><br />Main advantage of making it manned/unmanned is that you can get it into service as a manned platform with limited unmanned functionality and upgrade the unmanned functionality over time. <br /><br />And there are a lot of good reasons to want it to be optionally unmanned. One thing we've found out is that pure unmanned aircraft actually cost a lot of money. That's because they are fairly boutique designs. By sharing an airframe you lower overall costs. Additionally, there are a lot of operations that you don't necessarily need an additional pilot for: buddy fueling, recon, aircraft movements, etc. Being able to do those lets you have more planes dedicated to the actual fighting. atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74211645725361869272015-02-05T22:43:46.225-08:002015-02-05T22:43:46.225-08:00I'm wondering how difficult a navalized YF-23 ...I'm wondering how difficult a navalized YF-23 would be. It was the superior aircraft in the ATF comp, only losing because AF brass felt LM would manage the program better. I love those old quotes. But the 23 was stealthier, faster, and had longer legs. I'd forget about super duper future tech engines, go with an existing fast design and integrate the sensors needed. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38158546041871940002015-02-05T22:33:04.805-08:002015-02-05T22:33:04.805-08:00Well for one, it will certainly have 2 engines. ;)...Well for one, it will certainly have 2 engines. ;)atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-53906474134031665762015-02-05T17:28:52.256-08:002015-02-05T17:28:52.256-08:00I know, right?
I shouldn't belittle the chall...I know, right?<br /><br />I shouldn't belittle the challenges, but useful UCAV autonomy is far easier than practical self-driving cars.<br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69635638821390746492015-02-05T17:14:13.920-08:002015-02-05T17:14:13.920-08:00I don't see anything in CNO/USN statements tha...I don't see anything in CNO/USN statements that show they have learned anything from USAF F22 mistakes and DOD mistakes with F35. Doesn't appear they will retain anything from F35, not even DASS?, F135 or radar which means they will reinvent the wheel. I think if USN gets 50 FAXXs by 2040, they will be lucky....NICOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14567491909555759918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38764102681954972572015-02-05T16:45:54.350-08:002015-02-05T16:45:54.350-08:00All i can say is, wow!All i can say is, wow!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11192780191009682072015-02-05T16:41:59.053-08:002015-02-05T16:41:59.053-08:00"Full spectrum" has also been used to de..."Full spectrum" has also been used to describe threat levels, and missions.<br /><br />But maybe it's all of the above. <br /><br />The F-35 is not a great A2A platform, especially the C model. Neither is are the Hornet or Super Hornet. They all lag considerably behind other 4+ gen aircraft, kinematically. B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.com