geogenHehe, just a little glitched auto-maneuvering humor here while we’re at it, but one can see some poor pilot one day coughing, with the verbal command software thinking he said ‘cobra’. Yeow… *apologizes* to backseater.
geogenYou need a radar…
So dj,
… do I understand you’ve now just forced your opponent, who doesn’t exactly know quite where your scout VLO is loitering about or not, to restrict his flights strictly to within cloud formations — and requiring his increased dependence on radar?? Um, add electronic aware geolocating receiver, plus Mmm A L D to the list? 😮 … enter your imagination here ______.
Maybe wouldn’t be workable, required, or practical in this decade, true.
geogenThey would arguably be best off as a long endurance, alternate-site launched, sub-sonic VLO type…
Migrate some of the Tomahawk block IV command architecture maybe. Pre-program some autonomous parameters and allow other (including attack) parameters to be 5th gen link commanded by accompanying manned jets.
Such a VLO Interceptor could include a next gen 11.5″ derived LW IRST plus all-sphere, multi-spectral situational awareness. No radar necessary. Be a missile truck for 4x ERAM SM-6 class sized AAMs (250km NEZ range) or 8x air-launched ESSM-IR (150km NEZ range). They could be pre-prgrogrammed as area denial platforms (as would be a deployed anti-ship mine e.g.) to loiter about for a determined time and engage any target entering into a certain area from a certain direction, etc. Or they could be more ‘in-the-loop’ link commanded accordingly as escorts and shooters, etc.
Such a system could possibly be IOC within 7-8 yrs depending on the interest. They will definitely be game-changers on a strategic level and therefore could arguably be controlled now globally, or pressed ahead, depending on the political intent. imo.
geogenMadrat,
Just curious about your position statement…
You’d support a brand new aircraft development program for the ANG? How long would this dev program last? How much would could be funded? Would it take away from any F-35A buys for the USAF over the course of development?
Maybe (if there was any realistic budget in fact to ‘stopgap’ the ANG going forward in the first place) there are aircraft already available – which might not be the uber F-16XL ASM/interceptor platform the ANG could only dream for – but nonetheless suffice? Maybe ANG could simply acquire a couple hundred existing new build F-16 and F-15 platforms over the next 7-8 yrs, for the same cost it would take to develop something brand new and maybe get into production?
geogenI guess it’s the best they can do for such a light fighter – really not much to work with notwithstanding its highly cost-effective design – but I’m curious how much drag penalty if any would potentially limit the expected operational range gain (and impact speed), when compared to hauling the more aerodynamic 300 gal tank? And any latest ‘talk on the street’ with regards to possible CFTs would be of great interest, thanks!
And btw, here’s the vid apparently produced from the pic as linked above by Sign –
geogenThis could comprise the f-35 tech, if Turkey keeps heading in this direction.
emphasis Jessmo?? I didn’t see that line in the article, lol.
Well, just something to think about – TAI would likely be courted (if not already) or otherwise be eager to seek alternative joint-venture work from certain ‘other’ manufactures.. no?
There is no such thing as a fixed constant in this fast moving crazy game. It’s just simply not how it works. One has to be strategic minded and think 3 moves ahead these days I feel.
geogenQuite a well thought out proposal there, Liger 😎 and I’m sure most would concur with at least parts of that extensive design plan.
Unfortunately though, imho I think the RN side of it at least is still optimistic and needs to take a haircut in budget (of what it would probably cost to afford the structure being contemplated).
In this regard, I’m still thinking to save (re-allocate) strategic budget spending by acquiring only 1 EMALS/CATOBAR capable CVF and maintain remaining amphibs as long as feasible. Consider the 1 CVF as a strategic deployment deterrence asset. Write off the loss of not having more and suck it up as harsh as that is.
For RN – I simply can’t see UK getting all the Type 26s she wants, maintain the Type 23s she wants and retain the Type 45s she wants, I’m sorry. Wish it were the case but expect a future shock to the structure, staying that course.
Consider this further strategic alternative:
– 12x off-the-shelf Type 45 in lieu of Type 26 (the added fleet component would specialize in ASW, while existing fleet would be upgraded to employ SM-6 (exploiting future CEC) and sure, a few SM-3). Type 45 (only slightly larger than Type 26) could instead be offered for export to e.g. Brazil (but I’d go slow on this, even the Type 26, for sake of not spurring arms race in South America). Think long-term consequences, not immediate interests.
– Sustain your ‘existing’ Type 23 fleet operation and further upgrade with latest ASW emphasis. Hey, if you need an anti-pirate deployment some day, no worries, leave the ASW guys at home.
– If funds exist, lastly for the surface combatant fleet acquire some ‘off the shelf’ patrol corvettes, in lieu of any new class of ‘light frigates’, which should indeed be modular to include, yes, towed sonar.
– in lieu of 2nd CVF – 4x Hockums A26 AIP subs as cheap, asymmetrical fleet and coastal defense supplementing whatever high-maintenance Astute fleet is left.
– 40 RN F-35C for combined land based and CVF-deployed naval role. Folks, take into account this airframe (B or C) will be extremely expensive. Whether one procures 140 or 40, they will be very expensive… so not to be distracted by economies of scale (and just buy to support local industry, dammit) arguments.
– remaining JSF tactical aircraft budget should be re-allocated to future UCAV development and for 40+/- additional tranche 3B Typhoons. imho. LoL, I know you guys go back and forth on that… just thinking they would be the optimal ‘industry’ play, while most cost-effectively complementing multi-role requirements over the mid-term.
imho, and just my gut feeling.. cheers-
geogenOK, well I’ll be looking forward to following along on the UK Defence Review Saga part trois … 😮
I’d be curious after the next 1k posts what sentiments will have modified or stayed the same as far as UK’s hypothetical best case posture goes. Cheers-
geogenJust another ‘woulda shoulda coulda’, fwiw…
I’m curious if the mighty Mirage 4000 could have sufficed for both meeting Strategic Su-30 class fighter requirements as well as the MCA class requirement? …
An improved Snecma-GTRE engine powering both M4000 (and M2000) could have been license-produced already and fully supported logistically.
This upgraded Snecma could have then also been a credible candidate for LCA. imho..
Anyway, just shooting some ideas off and trying to go as far outside the box as possible in one Wiki search. Cheers and hope F414EDE/EPE is a winner. Good luck.
geogen… it is unclear whether or not the radar is included in the Boeing award.
Fair enough. There should definitely be a standardized price quotation, regardless of the aircraft. As it is today, a particular price being quoted by industry might not even include the cockpit!! And nobody in public would ever know this until after the fact – God bless us all.
geogenDear Dassault…
Where are the CFT, si vous plait!! 😀 Combined with upgraded Snecma powerplants, perhaps Rafale can be renamed: Mirage F-XX?
Salut-
geogen…When we see the contract award to LM for the LRIP-4 airframes on defense.gov, we will have a better idea.
Well said.. although let’s not hold our breath – just a gut feeling unfortunately. Hope I’m wrong.
geogenWhy not just refurbish stored USAF F-16s? The USA is currently trying to sell them, e.g. to Romania.
That would be fine to consider with the only small problem being that staying the course, USAF/DoD is currently trying to procure something by the name of the F-35A, which is an all-consuming Program with regards to budgets (regardless of how many or few are procured year to year).
So while the reasons to recapitalize the ANG sound sensible and justified on face value, the reality being faced is that greater procurement possibilities and options, by default, are severely restricted. imho.
In this regard, I feel it is by no coincidence that Gen. Schwartz alerted all recently in changing the expectations of a future Air Force to fulfilling an ‘Air sufficiency requirement… where it once fulfilled Air Superiority’.
geogenDefcon,
Imho, I just can’t conceive USN as being able to afford both the currently expected F-35C and any anticipated N-UCAS type UCAV fleet by let’s say… a notional date of early 2020s.
Maybe if the USN substantially cut F-35C procurement(?), but that’s a bigger part of the ongoing debate.
geogenHow ’bout an ESSM with an AMRAAM seeker?
– Sferrin, nov. 2005.
Point —-> sferrin… lol. I’ll correct my statement: sferrin and Dwightlooi were ahead of their time in discussing this alternative concept.
And yes, if a 6.5″ or 7″ body can effectively accomodate a next-gen dual-mode seeker configuration (possibly including a mmW) into an extended range+ AAM (beyond 120D class ranged system), then credit due to that design.
WW – fair point.. imho though, a more asymmetrical 620lb class AAM such as an ESSM-based one, would more likely be a supplemental high-end system (perhaps with 50% greater NEZ then 120D?) to a next-gen JDRADM/120D-class and not necessarily a substitute. And the suggested ESSM-based IOC date as being achieved prior to (and cheaper than) an hypothetical 2018-2019 JDRADM IOC date, was furthermore only for perspective. And… fwiw, I didn’t intend to highlight the ESSM ‘what if’ development in this thread despite my apparent bias for it… rather was more interested in viability of the mmW ‘dual-mode’ or stand-alone seeker.
Sign In
