ComNavOps has long proposed a very long range fighter
aircraft for the Navy. One of the
persistent objections has been that it is physically impossible to achieve the
desired 1000+ nm combat radius (see, "Long Range Carrier Fighter") despite the overwhelming evidence that it is eminently
possible. Well, now it appears that the
military agrees with me as evidenced by the requirements for the new F-47 under
development. Amazingly, for modern
times, at least, the prototype is due for first flight in 2028.
AF wouldn’t be making the claim if they (and industry) didn’t think they could do it. Of course, claims are just that and nothing is proven until demonstrated. However, we have sufficient examples of very long range aircraft from decades ago to expect that today’s more efficient engines and better aerodynamics should deliver the range we want.
We also need to ensure that firepower, speed, stealth, and
maneuverability also join with range to make a truly formidable fighter. Range, alone, will not make an air
superiority fighter … but it’s a good start!
Let’s hope the military doesn’t try to turn the F-47 into a
do-everything, nothing well abomination.
Make it a fighter and leave it alone.
This is encouraging if yet premature.
__________________________________
The Air Force has said the F-47 will have a combat radius of more than 1,000 nautical miles and be capable of flying at speeds greater than Mach 2. That would make the aircraft’s combat radius nearly double that of the F-22.[1]
AF wouldn’t be making the claim if they (and industry) didn’t think they could do it. Of course, claims are just that and nothing is proven until demonstrated. However, we have sufficient examples of very long range aircraft from decades ago to expect that today’s more efficient engines and better aerodynamics should deliver the range we want.
https://redstate.com/wardclark/2026/02/26/air-forces-new-f-47-fighter-hits-stride-for-2028-takeoff-n2199600
"AF wouldn’t be making the claim if they (and industry) didn’t think they could do it."
ReplyDeleteDid this blog get hacked? They always overpromise, especially on price.
I do think this is possible if turbofan powered non-supersonic aircraft with big wings are used, like the Navy C-37 with a range of 7770 miles, but smaller for carriers. You'd have a squadron of these with long-range air-to-air missiles that can hit long range targets. Use F/A-18 squadrons for dogfights. These would also be great for COD and ASW and a bomber (cruise missile or glide bomb carrier)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G550
I'm sure you noted that I qualified the AF claims by saying, "Of course, claims are just that and nothing is proven until demonstrated."?
DeleteThat aside, there is sufficient proof from past performances to warrant realistic expectations in the claim. The A-6 Intruder was credited with a greater than 1000 mile combat range and that was with 1960's era technology. At the very least, we should be able to produce a fighter equivalent of that and, quite reasonably, we should be able to exceed that with modern, fuel-efficient engines and better aerodynamics. The F-22, which made no attempt to maximize range in its design, is credited with a 750 mile combat radius so we should certainly be able to significantly improve on that. The F-111 is credited with a 3600 mile range. I see no reason why we can't achieve the AF requirements/claims. Of course, we'll wait to see.
"squadron of these with long-range air-to-air missiles that can hit long range targets."
I'm nowhere near convinced that this is a viable approach. The issue, as it so often is, is targeting. How does a C-37-ish aircraft get targeting on stealth and semi-stealth aircraft without being destroyed out of hand since it is hugely non-stealthy? This is where all such schemes fall apart. I'm genuinely curious. How do you envision large, non-stealthy missile carrying aircraft getting target locks at great range? Most sources indicate that targeting on stealthy or semi-stealthy aircraft will not occur beyond 10-40 miles or so. That puts the C-37-ish aircraft in the already dead category.
The modern aerial battlefield will have stealthy and semi-stealthy aircraft roaming the skies. Yes, we have our own stealthy aircraft but that doesn't improve the detection ranges. It only increases the likelihood of their survival, somewhat. As I've stated in the past, modern air combat between stealth aircraft will devolve into visual range combat since neither aircraft will be able to get a target lock at BVR.