via Defense News.
Northrop Grumman has stood up a pair of teams dedicated to developing a "sixth-generation" fighter for both the Navy and Air Force, years before the services intend to issue requests for information on potential replacements for current aircraft.Drink that in. Industry is already working on a 6th generation fighter for the services. Not a joint plane but one tailored for both the USAF and USN. Interesting huh? Now here is the kicker. Slowman found this article via Janes...
It's an aggressive move that Tom Vice, president of Northrop's aerospace division, hopes will pay off in a big way for his company.
"Northrop Grumman will compete for the next generation fighter," Vice flatly declared, noting that there is a program manager already leading a team of Northrop staffers on the program.
When asked whether he envisioned Northrop acting as a prime contractor on a future fighter, he added "of course."
The UK has set out a future combat aviation force structure to meet the country's post-2030 combat air requirement.What are we seeing here?
In a House of Commons Defence Select Committee (DSC) report published in late July, the UK government sets out a future force structure that includes options for unmanned aircraft, additional buys and upgrades of ordered and current aircraft, as well as a clean-sheet design for a new manned fighter platform.
As laid out in the report, titled Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems - current and future UK use: Government Response to the Committee's Tenth Report of Session 2013-14 , this structure will comprise one or a combination of different unmanned and manned platforms.
"A UCAV [unmanned combat air vehicle] along the lines of [the BAE Systems] Taranis is one potential element of this force mix, along with an additional buy of [Lockheed Martin F-35] Lightning II, a [Eurofighter] Typhoon life extension, or an alternative new-build manned aircraft," the report said.
This is as close as we're gonna get to an admission from the nations that are buying the F-35 and even the US services that the plane is not only a disaster but that it isn't going to deliver as promised.
This is the exit plan that they're adopting which indicates that a truncated buy is in the works. The only question that remains is when will the general public catch on that billions have been wasted on a plane that doesn't work.
"years before the services intend to issue requests for information on potential replacements for current aircraft."
ReplyDeleteLies.
The "Next Gen Tacair" program is already out.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=782e30c9c983f85e7952c2adc426b189&tab=core&_cview=1
And oh wait, look at the date!
Delete2010.
Someone is behind the curve.
And Lockheed Martin's proposing a modified F-35 to replace the F-22, based on the assumption that the US government cannot afford several tens of billions in R&D to develop a new airframe from scratch. The inferior aerodynamic performance of the F-35 could be made up with superior AMRAAM replacements, Lockheed's reasoning goes.
DeleteAnd the troubling thing is, Lockheed may be right in that the US government is too broke to be able to afford a new fighter jet development program.
Of two options, upgrading the Typhoon is more realistic, because Rolls-Royce has found two potential buyers willing to invest in EJ230 for their respective fighter jets, the TFX(http://www.brahmand.com/news/Turkeys-ASELSAN-inks-deal-with-Eurojet-for-EJ200-engine/13417/1/13.html) and the KFX, where the EJ230 is currently leading over he F414K.
ReplyDeleteWith a pair of 23,000 ~ 29,000 lbs thrust EJ engines shared across three fighter models and new sensors, the twin-seat variant(The back seat pilot flies drones) of the Typhoon becomes particularly cost-effective past 2030, when stealth has all but been defeated by advanced sensors and the only thing that guarantees a fighter jet's survival is faster and higher flight speed and longer range missiles to enable first-shoot-first-kill.
As for the new fighter jet, this requires a partner nation, either the US or Japan, but both are struggling with finances.
you're either on drugs, overly hopeful or not paying attention to current events. when oil goes back up and you ccan bet it will then the US will be a major oil exporter. additionally we can zero pennies to rub together but we will always do what nations like S. Korea refuse to do. provide for an adequate defense.
Deletei always find it amazing that people that depend on the US for its very defense are always the first to attempt to denegrate our capibilities. but i have a simple solution. pull our troops out of S. Korea, send the families home and let the S. Koreans defend themselves. put all our forces in Japan where they'll be welcomed and that should save billions...more than enough to start on a new fighter.
Solomon
Delete> put all our forces in Japan where they'll be welcomed
I don't understand why Solomon gets a misconception that Japanese welcome US troops. The current governor of prefecture where any additional US troops will be sent was elected based on his pledge that he would kick Americans out to Guam.
Japanese mainlanders surely welcome US troops, but they don't want American troops around in their towns, but some place else far away never to be seen in their daily lives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D22j5r2vq0M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqiuHCVhPQI
just a fringe population on Okinawa. the same protest can be shown occuring in S. Korea. the ultimate solution would be to simply pull out of both places and station our troops in Australia. oooh Australian women!!!!! sizzling!
DeleteSolomon
Delete> a fringe population on Okinawa.
A fringe population that hosts 75% of US military installations in Japan. Guess why Okinawa got 75% of US bases in the first place? Because Japanese mainlanders didn't want them in their backyards.
Right now, Japanese mainlanders are being polite about the US bases "in Japan" because they are not in their backyards, But they will change their tunes and start electing politicians opposing US bases once US bases start showing up in their backyards.
> oooh Australian women!!!!! sizzling!
Which is the quickest way to drum up an Australian protest against US bases.
> Australian women
DeleteCome get 'em Sol! Better yet, why not stay and help us grow our population!
beautiful women, awesome countryside, great people vs left leaning govt and no gun rights? sorry but you could have 36DDD babes waiting at the airport and the gun rights thing wins everytime!
Delete> Australian women
DeleteCome get 'em Sol! Better yet, why not stay and help us grow our population!
Drop by Australia, Sol. The locals are friendly and the beer are always cold/chilled.
DeleteJust don't mind the snake-eating-spiders and/or the spiders-the-size-of-a-dog (makes good pet to ward off door-to-door salesmen and door-knocking politicians).
Spent a bit of time in Sydney, nice place.
DeleteGuns vs beautiful women?
Take my guns now!!! :)
For the UK this certainly isnt a surprise.
ReplyDeleteIf we had gone ahead with the C, I could see a C-Phoon fleet being it, but the B doesnt really do it.
The UK essentially has three "fighters"
Something to shoot down Russians over the north sea, or further away
Something to fly off short and low grade runways, ships or strips
Something to blow shit up, the Future Offensive Air System.
The C could have been the ship operable and covered deep strike, but we havent gone that route, soooooooo
"when stealth has all but been defeated by advanced sensors and the only thing that guarantees a fighter jet's survival is faster and higher flight speed and longer range missiles to enable first-shoot-first-kill."
Stealth isnt a cloaking field, all it does is make you harder to spot.
If advanced sensors are spotting stealth aircraft one two three hundred miles out, how far away do you think they are spotting none stealth?
The Typhoon is fundamentally crippled by the fact that three quarters of the IP is held by people who wont invest in it.
The F-35A/B/C are replacing legacy planes like the F-16/18(C/D),etc.
ReplyDeleteThe article in the OP is about a replacement for what the F-35 is NOT replacing, namely the Super Hornet and F-22.
dude really? is that what you're attempting to glob onto? the hope for the F-35 was that it would eventually be so good that it replaced the Super Hornet too! you know that! the problem is that even before it enters service many are looking to see IT replaced and many are talking about the Typhoon, Super Hornet, Rafale and others getting upgrades when they should have been replaced by modernized (at that time) F-35s!
DeleteDUDE! THE PLANE IS A PIECE OF SHIT! the best it can hope for is to become the global harrier replacement but even in that role i have my serious doubts.
The F-35 was never meant to replace the Super Hornet, ever. The USN always wanted a navalized F-22'ish fighter for that. You are not going to find any official docs that state Sh replacement was part of the program.
DeleteSorry to burst your buble, but nobody associated with the program is seeking an early replacement for the F-35.
how much longer can you continue to ignore the obvious? the US Navy isn't enthused about this airplane, the current Commandant isn't fired up about it (less than 30 words about an airplane that is suppose to revolutionize the way the Corps does business?????? yeah that sounds like a man thats fully onboard!) and everyone is looking for a way out of this mess.
Deleteif you can't see the big elephant in the room then i can't help ya!
You mean like this:
Deletehttp://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/north_america/usa/exhibition/SAS_2014/pictures/IMG_4102.JPG
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteWhaaaaat.
ReplyDelete6th gen aircraft initial development being as a replacement for F-35?
Its just a logical next stop. They both will fly together, its not like it`ll take over F-35.
Christ, your blog really reminds me of : http://s16.postimg.org/lvgqvl0lx/f_35_Bob.jpg
It`ll be 2030 before 6th gen fighter sees the horizon of IOC at best.
What do you propose doing till then? Fly the ailing airframe of F-16 and F-18?
the way the F-35 program is going it'll just be reaching full operational capability just before its retired forever. people have called the plane the modern day Brewster but its more like its the modern day F7U Cutlass. looked great on paper but was a maintenance nightmare and served for only a few years before it was tossed into the trash heap of history....after it killed many pilots.
Delete2020 (+2 if we are being pessimstic) will be when all three variants of F-35 will be flying with latest Block 4 soft patch, allowing it carry things like in-development Joint Strike Missile , LRASM and Brit Meteors,Brimstones and whatnot.
DeleteYou are looking at a time period of at least a decade where F-35 is sole pillar of USAF.
You can legitimately argue about its capabilities but to pretend that it`ll disappear is hilarious - has F-22 with its ~180 disappeared in dust bin? It`ll fly for at least two decades.
Nevermind the fact that more F-35s have already been built than F-22s and LRIPs are only beggining to roll out.
block 5 is full capability but once again F-35 supporters paper over the real facts of the program. block 5 completion? 2025 if they're lucky and they haven't been lucky since they cheated and won this contest. sorry sonny. once again you lose. stop playing with facts....stop equivocating....stop CHEATING with information by providing only half of it instead of ALL the facts that people should know.
DeleteBlock 4 is 2022-2024, Block 5 is 2024-2028.
DeleteWhat the hell do you mean with ''full capability?''
DeleteFuck knows what we`ll have by mid 2020.
By Block 4 it will carry all the current missiles that are in service and even still in development.
Hell, with Block 4 its supposed to be nuclear capable.
''The full software package, known as 3F, is designed to support a suite of internal and external weapons, including the GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition, laser-guided Paveway II bomb, Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, and infrared Sidewinder missile.''
you say nuke capable like that's suppose to be impressive. its not! additionally the block 5 software has always been touted as the full capability block. only the stupidity of the previous commandant has seen things watered down so much they fucking suck. we weren't suppose to put them into service till block 3 so please spare us the bullshit!
Deleteif you want to be honest we can continue but if you're just gonna spin shit, in other words LIE YOUR ASS OFF then i'm done trying to talk to you.
Sure, also reply to the other thread.
DeleteOh, so now working out additional code for B61 guidance kit isnt all of sudden impressive at all?
I doubt your understand of how software development for something like F-35 works and what are its requirements - its a far cry from ''plug and play'', nothing like replacemening Win7 with Win8 or swapping video cards.
''Has been touted''...factually, Block 3F already supports JDAMS,Air-to-Air Missiles that are in service.
Thats current necesity ie capability. The only thing that you can complain about is that it doesnt (yet) carry CBU-105.
'' Full operational capability will come from Block 3F software; Block 3F enhances its ability to suppress enemy air defenses and enables the Lightning II to deploy the 500 lb JDAM, the GBU-53/B SDB II, and the AIM-9X Sidewinder. Block 4 software will increase the weapons envelope of the F-35 and is made to counter air defenses envisioned to be encountered past the 2040s. ''
There, you love your facts so much.
Complaining about future without knowing what F-35 will have to do then is silly.
Block 5 is a fucking laser jammer that is still in development.Its hypothetical weapon at this point.
Where have you pulled those quotes from? I would appreciate a source.
DeleteYeah, 6th Generation fighters ... Sure. Let's ask the Chinese what they think, shall we? I'm sure, by now, the Chinese has managed to hack into NG's network and pillaged all the data about this so-called "6th Generation fighter".
ReplyDeleteChina has the knack of making industrial/military espionage look like child's play.
For now we should be investing more in cyber warfare before we go on to develop our next gen stuff and letting the Chinese get them
DeleteSol, I don't know if you've been following this story, but it's getting pretty juicy. A few days ago a USAF General was caught saying that praising the A-10 to lawmakers is treason. Now John McCain wants an investigation into the matter:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/16/general-praising-the-a-10-to-lawmakers-is-treason/
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/23/mccain-wants-investigation-a10-treason-comments/
sorry but i consider McCain a conservative in name only. the guy makes the slimiest snake you could find look absolutely cuddly in comparison. he's playing to the cheap seats on this one and will gladly wreck a misguided General's career (i have no sympathy for the brass but it was obviously a verbal slip and he was just conveying to his troops how important this was for them...even if i disagree). besides the deed has been done. they did it thru the backdoor just like this Congress does everything be it Republican or Democrat. they put on a show for the folks back home but in the end they're all a bunch of bastards that should be taken out back and shot.
DeleteInteresting... for USN and USAF only ? where's the game changing STOVL marine corps's 6th gen fighter ?
ReplyDeleteThe best thing for the USAF to proceed with, for an hypothetical next-gen platform Program, would be to spend perhaps around $6-10B on a major redesign and upgrade of the existing F-15E+. New wing, new tail, new inlet, new nose, new canopy, yes - new CFT, and of course new avionics to include the best of off the shelf. This aircraft should complete SDD phase by early 2020s and achieve IOC by 2025 at the combat squadron level. USN? Same should apply, but substitute a redesigned, modernized F-18 E/F. Supplement both services with a common next-gen LO UCAV acquisition. Think clean-sheet common TACAIR design to complete SDD phase by 2040?
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to think Sol's way too down on the F-35. Of course it is not going to be a "superplane" that LM seems to want people to believe, but it's hardly going to be a brick that can't leave the hanger. More likely than not, you'll be getting something like the F-16's performance. C/D/Viper level if you are lucky, A/B level if not.
ReplyDeleteThere was never a chance of the F-35 being more capable than the F-22, the initial concept was a cheap stealth fighter to foist off on US allies and would have been no big loss if the "enemy" got a hold of one. Hence the initial "Congressionally permitted level of stealth" (aka 2nd rate stealth not up to the F-22 level). From the start, it was always intended to be a second rate plane. It is only after the 2008 economic debacle that the F-22 production was cut and the F-35 ended up being the US's next generation mainstay. They probably wished that they designed a better plane from the start, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
So if you complain about the F-35 being a 2nd rate plane, remember. It was designed that way. A throwaway design that congress would not mind losing to the Chinese.
Pity the Chinese were smarter/faster than people realized and stole the plans straight from the computers instead of waiting for a working model.
F35 is better than the F22 (at bombing), and always will be a better bomber, since the F22 can not even dream of carrying the sorts of air-to-ground munitions that a F35 can. However you are dreaming if you are comparing the F35 to the F16 which are completely different type of plane, one is an affordable, maintainable, deployable and operational multirole fighter-plane. The other is not..... Its not even a good aeroplane....
DeleteThe F-35, as Solomon correctly indicates, has major problems. Top four--
Delete--engine - the deficiencies that caused a major fire on June 23 have not been corrected, which limits the service planes to 3 g's -- my pickup can do that.
--software - after thirteen years they aren't even close
--sensors - ditto
--cost - F-35A unit procurement cost now at $182m and that doesn't include the extensive costs for new facilities. In the U.S., installation costs have surpassed $100 million at three airbases planning to house F-35s: Hill, Luke and Yuma. The UK's total investment including installation costs has come to £5 billion so far for 18 aircraft - that's £278 million ($417m) each.
Regarding a "stealth fighter to foist off on US allies" the export F-35 version differs from the U.S. model. The Pentagon paid Lockheed about three-quarters of a billion dollars to re-engineer the plane's design to allow export of sensitive components.
Your all high if you think >5Bn is appropriate to spend designing a fighter-plane that uses off-the-shelve sensors, avionics, engines and weapons. Im not doubting the ability of congress and the military-industrial complex to spend that much 'designing' an aeroplane, but it is not an appropriate amount, especially when all the institutions and people required to create such aeroplanes exist.
ReplyDeleteDF-21D Range: 1,500km/900nm.
ReplyDeleteF/A-18E/F Radius: 550nm.
F-35A/C Radius: 584nm.
Play the 'Near Peer' game and you _will lose_. Because ROTHR (Relocatable Over The Horizon Radar) can spot individual aircraft as much as 2,500nm away. We have done it out of Lousiana, tracking drug runners over the Caribbean. The Australians have done it out of Laverton in central Australia, seeing targets as small as Cessna 172s over East Timor.
It is not perfect. It relies on precision ionospheric maps, decent weather and certain Doppler conditions which are not always present. But the ability to spot a CSF is inherent to HOW FAR you can spot the constellational effect of the halo'd aircraft and ladies in waiting escorts. Taken together there is nothing that is comparable.
The other thing to consider is that, just on .acquisition costs of 150 million per jet and 18 aircraft per squadron, a single squadron adds up to 1,350 surface to surface missiles on the order of the Hoplite and at least 675 HSSW. The first has a range on the order of 150nm-300nm, depending on lofting. And the second almost 1,000nm. With speeds on the order of Mach 3 and Mach 8 respectively, they are never more than 10-12 minutes from their targets and they can be installed on both SSCs and Submarines which effectively takes the 'A2AD' condition out of consideration.
What's more, the Chinese are stealing a march on us. With their own Wu-14 and Dark Sword, they are going into the hypersonic strike weapon field whether we do or not.
If the excrement hits the rotary cooling mechanism over Taiwan, Korea or the Senkakus, how much better would it be to have 60+ shots on a VPM equipped attack sub that you have had on-station at least a month prior to hostilities opening vs. a CSF that cannot even, of a certainty, survive to bring it's airpower inshore where it can start to suffer 'Carrier Myth' problems with numbers of sorties generated per day?
DF-21D = 10 million dollars each.
SM-3IIa = 3 million dollars each.
CVN-78 = 12 BILLION dollars. Not including airwing or escorts.
America needs to get it's head in the game on affordable, long range, strike capabilities. Or we will get it handed to us by folks who are not 'historically attached' to a nostalgic anachronism like subsonic, 1 sortie per day to 1,100nm (if you have landbased tanking), manned airpower.
P.S. I have serious misgivings about the USN being entrusted with another tactical aircraft program when they have so viciously, deliberately, messed up the ATA-12 and F/A-18E/F as the drivers which brought us to this 'Three Planes, One Name' debacle. They are notorious for being cheapskates who break the rules and outright lie to contractors to get an arm-behind-back leverage. And their requirements for 60ft or less and 60,000lbs or less as a function of cat and trap suitability will likely drive any NGAD airframe to the short side of necessary capabilities.
They should not be rewarded for past mistakes and present distance from a 'USAF' program by being handed a major development program simply because they have decided not to participate in yet another co-development program, if it's not led by them.
The USN are the French of the American Military Forces.
first exchange rates are not comparative when it comes to actual costs...especially for chinese tech. second work is already being done to counter the DF-21D. SM-6, SM-3, upgraded Aegis, not mention lasers and electromagnetic cannons will soon make short work of those missiles. additionally we haven't even talking about jamming, spoofers etc that will make targeting a carrier battlegroup steaming at 30 knots a VERY difficult target.
Deleteconsidering the cost restraints that the USN has operated under they've been probably the best stewards of US defense dollars in recent history. the Super Hornet is by no means perfect but its an evolutionary development, entered service on time and hasn't broken the bank while doing so.
i think your misgivings are misplaced. your idea that manned airpower is dead is also wrong.
If the US had a competitive industrial basis, or if military contracts were not such a scam, those costs would probably be between half to a third for the CVN. Us ships built under license by relatively wealthy asian countries like korea and japan often cost about half as much. Some ships like the LCS are obviously much higher in the US...
DeleteAs long as you have sufficently long-range strike planes, plenty of aerial intelligence and capability to intercept it shouldn't be too problematic. Just don't park your carriers off the coast of a hostile country, within range of their coastal batteries, and their entire airforce.