Successor to F-22 by 2025

[biteasaur]

just read the u.s air force is studying alocating funds by 2020 for a replacement for f22 by 2025 accordind to janes.adjusting their parameters around what they have learned in the past about stealth,supercruise,manuverability.etc.interesting with what has happened recently,pak/fa flying-chinese jxx fixen to take off,troubles with f35 program.that are easily fixed this far in the game,rock on.i know we wouldnt replace the f22,but it is few in number.dang i kept digging and found out about a 6th generation program fighter i didnt even know about.cool.

[cr9527]

USAF reveals 30-year investment plan


What is more interesting is that F-35 would have a peak production rating of 80 a year????

That means an order of combined 2.5K would take 30+ years???

[biteasaur]

...

thanks for posting the link..yeah i noticed that about the f35 too..

[bfng3569]

"A process to determine exactly what capabilities will be required from the future fighter fleet has already begun with the plan stating that "it is anticipated that a family of systems - mixes of manned and unmanned aircraft, with varying stealth characteristics and advanced stand-off weapons - will shape the future fighter/attack inventory"."

ummm... didnt the Army just try this?

FCS program anyone.....?

was someone not paying attention to how that ended....

[bfng3569]

USAF reveals 30-year investment plan


What is more interesting is that F-35 would have a peak production rating of 80 a year????

That means an order of combined 2.5K would take 30+ years???

i think the article said 'peak production rate for the air force', so i would assume they didnt mean overall peak production? also mentioned a further funding for 45 per year for the navy and marines.

[biteasaur]

just read.

i read they pushed the- ioc" i think is how you spell it back to 2015 for the f35,isnt that 2 more years,it was 2013.

[cr9527]

ummm... didnt the Army just try this?

FCS program anyone.....?

was someone not paying attention to how that ended....

I don't think FCS was in any way bad, or should've been canned. Its just the current Administration doesn't feel modernizing the military is a priority.

[wellman]

well i think that unmanned aircraft is olny a good idea for UAVs. the idea that and unmanned fighter or bomber is flying around somewhere bothers me a little.

[bfng3569]

I don't think FCS was in any way bad, or should've been canned. Its just the current Administration doesn't feel modernizing the military is a priority.

from what i remember most aspects of the FCS program were over budget, delayed, and in lots of cases, not meeting there program/performance requirements.

anyone have a number on how much has been spent on FCS over the years and what we actually have to show for it?

[Stitch]

well i think that unmanned aircraft is olny a good idea for UAVs. the idea that and unmanned fighter or bomber is flying around somewhere bothers me a little.

What do you call an MQ-9 Reaper? It's basically an unmanned bomber flying around with Hellfires, and we've been using them for years.

BTW, not to be picky, but an "unmanned aircraft" is the same thing as a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle).

[dalem]

Makes more sense to me to move to flights of UAVs quarterbacked by manned "superfighters" and AWACS. Hell, you could even do it for air superiority couldn't you?

-dale

[Stitch]

Makes more sense to me to move to flights of UAVs quarterbacked by manned "superfighters" and AWACS. Hell, you could even do it for air superiority couldn't you?

-dale

I like that idea; sort of a "super AWACS" with a bunch of UAV's at it's disposal. You would probably need at least one operator per UAV, so that would limit the size of the flight to however many consoles you could squeeze into a B-707 airframe. Or, better yet, take a B-747 airframe, and configure it at a "mother" ship for dozens of UAV's.

[TopHatter]

YES! Bring it on! It would need a bigger airplane though, the 707 is pretty much full to the gills as it is.

Jimmy what in your opinion would make an ideal airframe for a state of the art new AWACS platform? The 777, the 747, something else entirely?

[Jimmy]

What do you call an MQ-9 Reaper? It's basically an unmanned bomber flying around with Hellfires, and we've been using them for years.

That mission doesn't require split second reactions, etc etc. If a Reaper picks up on a possible target, there are human analysts who make the decision to strike or not, the machine itself doesn't. With its mission, that's fine. You have the time to do that. Air combat doesn't necessarily have that kind of time. It literally is an environment where waiting a few seconds (to accommodate latency inherent in a remote-controlled system) IS the difference between getting schwacked and being the winner. The other alternative is some sort of AI or giving the aircraft the ability to fire based on a simple yes/no ID matrix...that there's no WAY the US will go that route anytime soon. Maybe someday we'll be able to field something along one of these lines...but not now, and not anytime soon.

I like that idea; sort of a "super AWACS" with a bunch of UAV's at it's disposal. You would probably need at least one operator per UAV, so that would limit the size of the flight to however many consoles you could squeeze into a B-707 airframe. Or, better yet, take a B-747 airframe, and configure it at a "mother" ship for dozens of UAV's.

YES! Bring it on! It would need a bigger airplane though, the 707 is pretty much full to the gills as it is.

[Jimmy]

Jimmy what in your opinion would make an ideal airframe for a state of the art new AWACS platform? The 777, the 747, something else entirely?

Sadly, most of my commercial flights have been on 737s or smaller. Overseas trips have been on military jets, aside from when I was a kid.

As self-serving as it sounds, something like the 787 would be fantastic. Both engine designs would produce plenty of power for mission systems and would have FAR better reliability over the current TF-33 or even the CFM-56 other 707-derivatives use. Plus added thrust and fuel economy would improve climb rate (which is dismal) and unrefueled range/orbit time. Aside from engine benefits, something about that size would really open up the main deck. The mid-section where all the scopes are is pretty cramped at the best of times. Fill up all 40 seats (training mission or going on a trip somewhere) and there's no room left at all. Now a lot of the room is taken up by hardware that will (in some cases) be going away with the Block 40/45 upgrade, but some of these airframes are still pushing 40 years old. When they do need to be replaced, there aren't many options.

I'm more familiar with Boeing, so I'll run through that list. 737 is just too small. We couldn't fit half our scopes in there. 747 is just too big...talk about overkill! The E-3 is already a heavy beast and needs a long runway. 767 is ending. I think it would've been the airframe of choice a few years ago. I know that's what they were looking at for the E-10, and the Japanese AWACS looks pretty nice inside (4 consoles across vs our 3, and they still have a wider aisle). 777 is still too big. 787 becomes the natural choice, as it's the most comparable to what we have now, and the 767...plus the obvious improvements.

In any case, it's so far off the Air Force isn't even looking at a replacement yet. The airframes are still solid, there are hundreds of spare engines, and money is scarce, to say the least. The E-3 is going to be around for a long time.