MadRatThe costs floated for the F/A-18E are bogus to say the least. The UK doesn’t use this fighter nor the vast majority of it’s subsystems so the setup cost will be an impossible barrier. They will not pay to setup for F/A-18E then turn around in 5 years for an F-35 design. And getting stuck with F/A-18E requires them to use American developed kit across the board whereas they already have budgeted for their own kit to work with F-35. They’d be paying twice yet again just to get out of the starting blocks on F-35. By the time F-35 rolls around they’ll have no reason to use UK developed weapons on either F/A-18E or F-35, further setting back their domestic industry.
MadRatThe common strategic rotary launcher was adapted for SDB, too.
MadRatEarlier I outlined a conventional 3-4 engine design to replace the B-52’s. Quite frankly any new design is going to replace the B-1B eventually, too. The main uses of the B-1B and B-52 today has steered away from nuclear delivery into a more conventional role. The B-2 will be the bomber that penetrates the highly advanced defenses now and into the future. The new bomber is not going to replace them.
Careful planning should be given to contain developmental costs to the extreme. We have quite a few commercial wing designs that are quite a bit more sophisticated and reliable than the design on the B-52. You do lost the ability to hang munitions from the wings, but that is what happens when you contain costs. You will have to develop a new fuselage, one that is much more narrow than the wide-body jets to which the wings would normally be attached. It is going to require bomb bays, preferable an identical layout to the B-52, and using the common strategic rotary launchers.
There is one thing I’d like to see incorporated on the new bomber, eight vertical launch dispensers that can cold launch missiles up to 1000 pounds in weight. The VL’s would give offensive self defense capability not seen on bombers for 50 years, the ability to shoot back. Future AMRAAM and JDRADM missiles will offer not only anti-air capability, but anti-radar, too.
Earlier I suggested using the LITENING targeting pod for ground attack. Maybe instead of LITENING, the new bomber should start with the Lockheed Martin Sniper ATP targeting pod? Cut out the need to refit later.
MadRatThe army, like the RAF, should be hard pressed to justify any big programs until both carriers are fully realized. Neither of the services has the capability to carry out the global missions that the RN is capable. The latter is the key to the UK’s economic prosperity.
MadRatUnmanned bomber would enjoy the 10-40 times crash rates, too.
MadRatIt’s asinine to even consider removing the button from push button warfare and replacing said button with automation. The whole concept of MAD is based upon mutual fear. Remove that fear and calculated risks become the ruler.
MadRatI believe the leaders today put too much emphasis on future capability and too little on progression of a natural order. The B-2 was a huge mistake IMHO, because it placed too much emphasis on new technology that wasn’t ready for affordability. They should have put more emphasis on carrying bombs until they figured out how to do stealth affordably. Even it’s modest boost in its performance capability over the B-52 in a non-super stealth airframe placed an incredible burden upon the Soviet air defenses at the time.
MadRatI’d like to see a non-goldplated solution along the lines of replacing the B-52.
Conventional design, high wing placement. Narrow, rectangular body like the B-52. A nice, wide 60-65 meter wingspan. 4500-5000 square feet wing area. (Preferably using an OTS commercial wing design.) Three or four man crew, split level cockpit accommodation for up to ten total people. Spec for up to 200k litres of internal fuel. Compatibility with synthetic fuel blends. Maximum takeoff weight that exceeds (300,000 kg). Spec for 2500 meter takeoff at 80% load, minimum 3000 meter safe takeoff at full load. Optimized for flight up to 45,000 feet altitude. Fitted with 3-4 large OTS, commercially available engines in the 300 to 350 kN dry thrust range. Optimized for a 600 mph (965 km/h) cruise speed.
Bomb truck capacity that matches or exceeds the B-52. Long loiter times, emphasis in strategic role for standoff weapons. Harpoon capability. Removable active, phased-array, pulse-Doppler radar sensor for alternative roles such as use as a TSAR/mini-JSTARS, sea surveillance, armed reconnaissance, SLOC interdiction, etc.; preferably with an LPI mode. LITENING targeting pod for ground attack. Up to eight integrated, VL missile launchers for self defense missiles using a system based upon CLAWS and using the SLAMRAAM missiles to provide 360º defense up to 40km out. Multiple an/aaq-24 DIRCM point defense systems.
MadRatBWB?
MadRatI’m still failing to see why an ANG interceptor is going to need VLO details, ground attack radar modes, and a large motor like the F110. Makes more sense to me to set a competition up for a dedicated – you know, single-role – interceptor. Aim for a smaller engine, preferably OTS, with 60kN dry and 90kN wet thrust performance goals at an SFC that is sustainable in time of national security. These airframes need to be affordable, sustainable in an economic downturn, and effective for the ANG to carry out it’s domestic defense role. We don’t need stealth, 100 radar modes, and certification to carry every gizmo ever slung under a warplane in the history of the United States.
MadRatThe lifetime cost of the fixed-plane AESA is lower than a comparable performance mechanical radar. I would want AESA. You don’t need all the bells & whistles of the APG-80 or -81. Your modes should concentrate on the interceptor mission.
I also like the idea of a front hemisphere EODAS or pod-mounted IRST. Digital eyes reduce pilot workload.
MadRatIf DSI is necessary to keep it cheap then go all out for cheap and aim for something in the F414-class. I’m not talking F-20, I’m saying hold a competition for our world class engineers to compete at the design with a cost ceiling in mind. Keep it single purpose, like the F-106A was, and see what they come up with. The ANG needs a fighter that can patrol the skies around our country. There will be drip down assets from the USAF for years to come to fill the multipurpose roles. If you eliminate stealth, exotic materials, and the need for carrying out non-interceptor tasks from the competition they should be able to come up with something in the sub-$25 million range.
MadRatI predict the demise of the RAF. The RN has hundreds of years of traditions, the RAF is a young pup in comparison. Sometimes your own mouth sinks you and that is exactly what he is doing to his own service.
MadRatHow about we take a picture from the ATF competition and put it out for bids, with a pair of flying prototypes in 16 months for a mandatory 4-month long fly off where one of the two airframes is always available for flight. Manufacturing for the production airframes must be available within 30 months of the competition in order to win. And pricing must be submitted for both complete and partial bids; a competitor must be willing to supply at an alternative respective price for winning 40-60% of the order. Instead of putting all the orders into one basket the ANG should be able to split it between two orders.
Require the design to incorporate use of one or two turbofan engines that is sub-900mm in diameter and sub-4000mm in length including the afterburner, weighing less than 1000kg. And specify the engine must operate at an SFC sub-.75 dry at a minimum of 60kN thrust, and sub-1.75 wet at a minimum of 90kN thrust. You’re not defining the maximum thrust, merely requiring 60kN and 90kN thrust for dry and wet thrust at a specific minimal SFC. That means they have to exceed 60kN dry and 90kN wet at the minimum.
Define the airframe to come equipped with an AESA radar using an array of at least 600mm in area, an integrated IRST or EODAS (but allow for OTS pod-mount systems already used by USAF/USN), 3-barrelled M61 20mm cannon, 3200L internal fuel, and the ability to refuel in mid-air using hook & drogue systems. The radar should have air intercept specific modes; we aren’t looking for a do-everything aircraft here. Also make it mandatory for the ability to carry three 370-gal Sargent Fletcher drop tanks OR to support two removeable CFT’s of minimum 440-gallon capacity and one 370-gal Sargent Fletcher drop tank. A helmet-cued aiming system should be mandatory. And it must be able to launch both the existing AIM-9X and AIM-120C7 missiles, plus the future AIM-120D. Again, you are not forcing this to be an end-all, do-all aircraft therefore minimizing what weapons need to be certified on it.
The F/A-50, Gripen, Ching Kou, and similar designs could all compete for the bid. The F/A-18 could also be a part of the bid, but would get absolutely destroyed in a cost comparison to smaller airframes.
MadRatIt’s a pity countries like Sweden are sitting on a stockpile of used jets with plenty of life left in them that would work excellent for much of the ANG’s mission. Its much more affordable than the F/A-18. It’s probably even cheaper leasing idle Eurofighters than buying new F/A-18. It’s a shame that the guys in charge cannot think outside the box.
Sign In
