Russia doing a fifth gen fighter will make nice vaporware. Crickets chirping at the announcement. If China does one, it will be knock off tech from the JSF being compromised ( which will most likely happen ) from having so many involved and our dumb ideas of exporting L.O. tech. Knock off tech of the Buick of Stealth. Be interesting to see what that Doppelgänger-ware ends up looking like.

I think you love too much the F-14, the F-18A is far better in performance and agility than the F-14A, the newest F-14D is little bit better in acceleration and agility but nothing outstanding, i do not know it`s turn rate, but the F-18E is fully armed with AIM-9X, Helmet mounted sights, has some degree of stealthiness and carries large amounts of AIM-120s, no F-14 had even the AIM-120 operation, the AIM-54 in US service did not achieve a kill.

My personal opinion is the F-18E is a good aircraft, will beat the F-14 thanks to the AIM-9X, can fight any rival even the Su-30 or the Chinese J-10, it is as agile as the F-18A but carries more warload.

In my opinion the F-18F and F-14 are equaly matched in terms of aesthetics, in weaponry is better in avionics is better and in terms of agility is more less as agile as the F-18A which was a difficult opponent for all the F-14A that were the main F-14 variant deployed and built.

I am sad the F-14 was retired, it was one of the most beautiful aircraft ever but no way i think the F-18E/F are inferior as a weapons platform

The AIM54 didn’t kill in U.S. service, because it was never setup for one.
F-18 being a “match” for the F-14… didn’t pan out in the real world. F-14s with Mk83s in some exercises ran right around F-18s and pressed on to hit their targets. Sometimes in a laughable manner… right by the BARCAP and pressed on to hit the target. Gas and speed. I wouldn’t crow too much about an F-18A. Do the math for the fuel consumption/carry and you aren’t going to be going very far. As any F-18E/F has some issues where again, a large fast mover with gas and speed ( SU-27/3x) , can contempt of engage the F-18 and press on and hit the target. F-14s with PGMs carried a strike pretty deep in known combat scenerios with less tanking. In the day ( in the 90’s and up to OIF/OEF ) they were the go-to jet for long PGM strikes. In order for a fast mover to get beat by the weezing performance of a F-18E/F, it has to get into it’s threat zone. Most fast moving jets designed since the 60’s can contempt of engage the F-18E/F and it has no ability to cut them off (with speed) or chase anything down. Good luck.
F-18E/F is a nice strike aircraft. F-14, maintenance pig that it became, delivered the goods in real world operations. Carrier commanders now draw a shorter circle of influence around the carrier battle group. Sad. Carrier aviation by it’s very nature is expensive. So I don’t really care if some pencil neck accountant that loves spreadsheets more than combat ability, makes the Carrier Air Wing… all nice and inexpensive………. at the cost of less total combat ability. A no peer combat jet of one squadron per deck with F-22 like performance needs to be put on the carrier deck. Not doing this is incredibly stupid. Lets spend all the insane amount of cash that it takes to sustain big carrier ops every year, and then put mediocre jets on the deck. Rank stupidity.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123028140

9/28/2006 – WASHINGTON (AFPN) — The Air Force is looking to get a “next generation” long-range bomber by 2018, according to the commander of Air Combat Command.

During the Air Force Association’s 2006 Air and Space Conference and Technology Exposition here Sept. 27, Gen. Ronald E. Keys, the ACC commander, told reporters the command is funded for a bomber, and it likely would be put together using some of the same advanced technology currently in the B-2 Spirit, the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II.

“We have a lot of those technologies and you put those together into something that will look much like what you know as an airplane,” he said. “And you can make a next generation long range strike (aircraft.) In order to make 2018, you have to use the far end of the technology you have your hands on.”

The general said the Air Force would not see the next “great leap” in bomber technology until around the 2030 to 2040 timeframe. Then, he said, the Air Force may see “hypersonic” capability — aircraft capable of flying at a speed of about Mach 5.

For other weapons systems that use hypersonic technology, the general said the command would have to consider cost verses benefit before making a commitment to buy.

“Hypersonics are cool things, but what do I get out of it,” he asked. “If I am there, with my persistent force, I can engage anything in seven minutes. If I had hypersonics, it would get me down to three minutes. But the people I want to kill can get away in the first two minutes. Am I willing to pay x billions of dollars for hypersonic weapons that don’t solve my problem? Those are the harsh decisions we have to make when people come to us with great technology.”

Hypersonic weapons are being researched by the U.S. military today. The weapons can travel at speeds above Mach 5 and can generally hit any target on Earth within hours of being launched. General Keys said ACC is interested in the weapons and is researching things such as the types of engines required, the kinds of metals that would needed, the kinds of rules that would be applied to their use and how weapons could be launched off hypersonic platforms.

While General Keys said he wasn’t ready to commit to hypersonic weapons immediately, he did not rule them out.

“I want a hypersonic thing to do a specific thing at a price I can afford with technical risks I am willing to take,” he said.

With the F-22, and with the F-35 on the horizon, the Air Force must consider when it will phase out the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon programs. For now, General Keys said the Air Force will keep many of these aircraft around.

General Keys said ACC plans to upgrade about 178 of the command’s best F-15 aircraft with the electronically scanned array antennas radar. Additionally, the command plans to upgrade other F-15s with the joint helmet mounted cuing system.

For the F-16 aircraft, ACC has invested in service-life extensions and is finishing up on the common configuration improvement program for the Block 40 and Block 50 F-16s. The general said the upgrades will allow those aircraft to do suppression missions and use advanced targeting pods.

AND

New Bomber Program to Begin ‘Black’
InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Carlo Munoz | September 29, 2006
The Air Force’s early efforts to field a next-generation long-range bomber likely will be cloaked in the shadows of a classified program, according to a senior service official.

“I think that it will probably start out just like a number of our high-end technical programs — it is going to start as a ‘black’ program until we understand where we are going,” Air Combat Command chief Gen. Ronald Keys told reporters during a briefing at an Air Force Association-sponsored conference in Washington. “Black” is military term typically used to describe a classified mission or weapons program.

The ACC chief said programmatic details such as anticipated costs and initial capability milestones will be disclosed to the public. However, issues pertaining to the platform’s projected range, speed and payload will remain closely held secrets known only by a select number of service and Pentagon officials intimately involved with or charged with overseeing its development.

“The details of what it is going to look like, how fast it is going to go, how far it is going to go, what it’s real capabilities [are] and stuff like that, I am not sure we are interested in letting a lot of people know what those will be,” Keys said.

The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review, released earlier this year, directed the service to terminate work on its portion of the Joint Unmanned Air Combat System (J-UCAS) program and begin development of a new long-range bomber.

Since then , Air Force and Pentagon officials have said the air service plans to lean heavily on lessons gleaned from its J-UCAS work as it begins developing a new bomber.

Top uniformed Air Force officials have said the service is mulling whether the new strike aircraft will be composed of a family of aircraft or a single plane.

With the QDR calling for a new bomber to be introduced into the field by 2018, a number of industry offerings have been floated.

One platform that has surfaced in debate about the new strike platform is a conceptual bomber version of Lockheed Martin’s F-22A fighter, which would feature a basic Raptor airframe as its baseline. It would be modified to meet the expected payload and range requirements for a long-range strike aircraft. Former Air Force Secretary James Roche was a proponent of the concept. Defense observers with close ties to the Air Force have said the so-called “F/B-22” has been discussed within the Pentagon as a possible bomber candidate.

One of the advantages of modifying existing aircraft is that those platforms likely could be fielded much faster — and conceivably much cheaper — than an entirely new aircraft that would have to be designed and built from the ground up, some observers say.

But Keys said he doubts the possibility that a modified Raptor could fill the service’s long-range strike needs by 2018.

“Now [the new aircraft] may have some F-22A kinds of capabilities or attributes, but I am not sure that we will pick up the F-22A and make it into a long-range bomber,” Keys told reporters at the Sept. 27 briefing.

Another platform that has been floated as one that could meet the service’s 2018 long-range strike needs is Northrop Grumman’s B-3 bomber, an offshoot of the company’s venerable B-2 bomber.

For his part, the ACC commander told reporters he is solely focused on finding an aircraft that can meet the service’s requirements.

“What I come and say is, ‘I need something that goes about this far, has this sort of internal volume, that can go and stay up about this long, has the capability to accept these kinds of sensors. What do you have out there that can do that for me?” Keys noted. “I do not go in and ask for a piece of hardware — I ask for capabilities.”

He also noted the cost to implement modifications to existing airframe specifically to meet the service’s requirements may not necessarily be cheaper in the long run than simply buying a completely new plane.

“As soon as I say, ‘I need something that goes Mach 1.5,’ people come back to me and say, ‘We can make this go Mach 1.2,” Keys said. “But to go Mach 1.5, it is going to cost you $25 billion dollars more — all of a sudden, I am a lot less interested in going Mach 1.5”

But the process of defining those capabilities that Keys said he will base his long-range strike decisions is not yet complete.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley has stated that a future long-range strike aircraft must have “persistent, survivable, penetrating capability” armed with a significant amount of weapons.

Additionally, service officials are still in the process of developing a comprehensive analysis of alternatives as part of the bomber program, a study that will help guide work on the platform.

As the air service continues its early work on the effort, one capability that likely will not be ready by the 2018 deadline is a hypersonic power plant, according to Keys. After the service was ordered to field a new bomber, there was talk in defense circles about powering the strike aircraft with hypersonic engines, which would allow it to travel at speeds exceeding those routinely achieved by today’s fastest military jets.

“When you get to 2018, you are not going to have that next great leap in technology,” the four-star said.“I believe that you are not going to have a hypersonic airplane, or an airplane that uses hypersonics.”

To that end, Keys said a more viable scenario would be a supersonic or subsonic aircraft that would be based on engine technologies fleshed out on platforms like the F-22A, the Joint Strike Fighter and, as envisioned, the Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air System effort, which is the moniker the Navy placed on its portion of the former J-UCAS program after the Air Force was ordered to move its portion into the bomber development initiative.

The ACC chief said he believes that advanced propulsion systems like hypersonics will probably reach maturity in time to potentially be fitted on the Air Force’s long-term bomber, which he said will be fielded in the 2030 to 2040 time frame.

“You take engines that you already have, you aerodynamic capabilities that you already have . . . and you can make a next-generation long range strike” platform, Keys said.

He also confirmed, as reported by ITAF earlier this year, that “there has been some talk” within the service about basing the 2018 long-range bomber and an envisioned next-generation gunship on the same airframe to pare down development and production costs.

“When you look at the requirements for a long-range [platform] — persistence, payload — the next generation gunship may look less like the gunship that we all would recognize, and look more like a bomber that we would all recognize.”

The service’s existing gunship fleet consists of two variants of the AC-130 aircraft: the AC-130H and AC-130U. The U-models have 25 millimeter guns in addition to the 40mm and 105mm cannons carried by both models.

But as the list of potential capabilities planned for the futuristic bomber grows, some have questioned whether the Air Force can finance all of its long-range bomber requirements while in the midst of a service-wide budget crunch and a costly recapitalization effort.

Christopher Bolkcom, a senior defense analyst with the Congressional Research Service, said during the conference that bomber advocates will “have to push all the way up to 2018” to guarantee the long-range strike effort gets the funding it needs within the service’s budget.

He noted that the $5 million inserted into the service’s six-year spending plan for the effort is a sign of “tangible support that bomber advocates can hang their hat on.” But Bolkcom warned that the service’s deep-seeded, fighter-based priorities would be a hurdle in securing future dollars for the burgeoning bomber effort.

“Air Force funding priorities are really not favorable to bombers, and there is now real way to get around it,” Bolkcom said. “The logic I hear from the corporate Air Force is something like this: ‘We need air dominance to pursue all subordinate missions, and we need fighters to achieve air dominance.’”

But Keys this week countered such claims, stating that 2018 is “doable” and that getting funding would not be an issue as the service marches toward 2018.

“I got a helluva lot of money in my budget” for long-range strike, Keys said. “This is not a hollow program.”
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,115319,00.html

Not a hollow program? Quite a disconnect in thinking. USAF needs to put on it’s reality hat. Funding cuts are going to go into ops and training in this next budget. That is about as stupid as one can get. Somebody wake up the flag ranks from their little dream. No bucks, no buck rogers.

and whats the alternative?

Not voting for an enemy-of-the-state democrat or republican.

😮
Well perhaps now, every country worldwide will pull together to defeat this Natural , or man made threat, or will they? Call me a pessimist if you like but it’s going to take a lot of effort to sort this one out, if it can be that is. 😮
_______________________________________

It can’t be defeated. Climate change will happen even if all we are using are draft animals. Get over it.

The only platform I want to see a Democrat or Republican on, is one with a trap door.

Except that with the history of the KC-135 and KC-10…. Boeing has more tanker performance metrics of every tanker mission done in the last 50 years than god. It is going to be a good fight, but Boeings experience in what it takes to use tankers in all mission sets,… and what it takes to sustain world wide tanker ops logistics down to the last paper clip, of an insanely large fleet, is unmatched.

A few days before the war, I would use AESA/MESA radar tech to send high bandwidth streaming video into the S-400 command van displays saying there are 200 free 10 day flight/hotel tour packages to Vegas. First come first serve for all S-400 operator techs. Just show up with a page from the S-400 operators manual as proof of I.D. Thats how you de-fang a stiff integrated air defense. :p