The Air Force Next Generation Air Dominance Vehicle

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Although I'm surprised the AF could pull all that off in one year, I'm not surprised since the F-35 is the plane that nobody really wanted.
 

spr1975wshs

Mostly settled in...
Ad Free Experience
Patron
Sent the link to my Mrs, as she works in flight test, and is former USAF.
Thanks
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Did I miss discussion about this aircraft? Seems the AF has designed, developed, and built a prototype in ONE YEAR that is more capable than what was produced in the first 10 years of F-35 development.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34030586/air-force-secret-new-fighter-jet/
https://www.defensenews.com/breakin...ll-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/
Don't believe everything you read. Particularly when it comes to who's pet project is better. You see a lot of smoke being blow up politicians (and the public( arse. Either the other guy is extravagant and over budget or under performing technically, or any issue they (the competitor) can come up with.
By competitor I mean in the Navy it could be F-18 versus F-35, versus rotary wing, etc. They are all competing for the defense dollar, within a service, between services and between manufacturer.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Although I'm surprised the AF could pull all that off in one year, I'm not surprised since the F-35 is the plane that nobody really wanted.
F-4, F-111, and now F-35. Every service has a gripe why they are unique and can't be part of a "joint" program.
At least with the F-35 they came up with the three unique platforms for the Navy, Marines and Air Force.

Here's the problem, besides political BS.
ALL programs are pitched to congress with costs to low and an overly optimistic schedule.
Congress more or less knows this, but a lot of their decisions are weighted by how much money will flow to their state or district.
If you asked the services they would admit to it (off the record). "Because the truth would give the other guy the upper hand".

Then congress chops the budget, and extends the development period and makes other changes to suit political needs.

Then they turn around and blame the agency that was handed the ball of crap.


Don't even get me started on production schedules and how that impacts the "costs" that are reported.
If you know anything about production, manufacturing costs, and accounting, you already know.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
F-4, F-111, and now F-35. Every service has a gripe why they are unique and can't be part of a "joint" program.
At least with the F-35 they came up with the three unique platforms for the Navy, Marines and Air Force.

Here's the problem, besides political BS.
ALL programs are pitched to congress with costs to low and an overly optimistic schedule.
Congress more or less knows this, but a lot of their decisions are weighted by how much money will flow to their state or district.
If you asked the services they would admit to it (off the record). "Because the truth would give the other guy the upper hand".

Then congress chops the budget, and extends the development period and makes other changes to suit political needs.

Then they turn around and blame the agency that was handed the ball of crap.


Don't even get me started on production schedules and how that impacts the "costs" that are reported.
If you know anything about production, manufacturing costs, and accounting, you already know.
Fortunately the pond we play in (ships) doesn't have all the "joint" issues to deal with.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Although I'm surprised the AF could pull all that off in one year, I'm not surprised since the F-35 is the plane that nobody really wanted.
The marines did, it was the marine requirement that ruined the aircraft for the air force, and the navy never really wanted in at all.
 

spr1975wshs

Mostly settled in...
Ad Free Experience
Patron
Sent the link to my Mrs, as she works in flight test, and is former USAF.
Thanks
Also sent it to a friend who worked in acquisitions for the US Army for decades.

Her comment: "Some serious dope smoking going on. It all sounds good, but I have yet to see software projects that weren't woefully behind schedule or over budget. The only thing worse than commercial software development programs are government managed software programs."
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
The marines did, it was the marine requirement that ruined the aircraft for the air force, and the navy never really wanted in at all.
The Air Farce always had their own derivative, less the Marine VSTOL and the Navy beefed up landing gear.
Problem was they couldn't afford a replacement for the Harrier unless the Air Farce and Navy bought some.
Without them buying aircraft, there would have been no FMS partners.
In the 70's the Navy and the Air Force each went out for their big interceptor, the Navy went with Grumman (because they built "Naval" aircraft for the F-14. They Air Force selected McDonald Douglas, because they were their provider of choice.
Then both services went out for the "light weight fighter", a lesson from Vietnam. Again, the Air Force took the F-16 from General Dynamics, the Navy decide on the YF-17, bid by Northrop, but because of their lack of Navy Experience, it became the McDonald Douglas F-18.
But as a bone, the government let Northrop pitch the FMS export fighter, the F-20. It was an upgrade of the F-5. Problem was, no country wanted to buy it because none of the US services flew the plane.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
I'm betting it comes from a black program where earlier versions/ideas were well along. Something along the lines of the A-12/SR-71. Meaning all the kinks were/are worked out under a different agency and then taken over by the USAF where they can claim "development to deployment" in record time.

Hope it's true. We need the F-22's successor in short order.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
The Air Farce always had their own derivative, less the Marine VSTOL and the Navy beefed up landing gear.
Problem was they couldn't afford a replacement for the Harrier unless the Air Farce and Navy bought some.
Without them buying aircraft, there would have been no FMS partners.
In the 70's the Navy and the Air Force each went out for their big interceptor, the Navy went with Grumman (because they built "Naval" aircraft for the F-14. They Air Force selected McDonald Douglas, because they were their provider of choice.
Then both services went out for the "light weight fighter", a lesson from Vietnam. Again, the Air Force took the F-16 from General Dynamics, the Navy decide on the YF-17, bid by Northrop, but because of their lack of Navy Experience, it became the McDonald Douglas F-18.
But as a bone, the government let Northrop pitch the FMS export fighter, the F-20. It was an upgrade of the F-5. Problem was, no country wanted to buy it because none of the US services flew the plane.
The marine variant's need for a lift fan is what drove all of the planes being "fat" which killed the speed and maneuverability. The original concept was the F-35 wouldn't be in the same class as the F-22 because it would be way cheaper, well they got one of those ideas correct.
 

DoWhat

Deplorable
PREMO Member
Skunk Works.
151796
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Hope it's true. We need the F-22's successor in short order.

I guess I am just a old fan from the 80's

What is the problem with F-15 / F-16's [ I know the F-15's have a structural issue behind the cockpit ]

[besides no longer being built]

have avionics and flight changed that much since the 80's ... what about upgrades

I'm not a fan of either the F 22 or F 35 .... I think the money could have been better spent modifying what we already had

Dan Grazier, the Jack Shanahan Military Fellow at the Project On Government Oversight, writes extensively on military procurement, to include the F-35 acquisition. He said that while he can’t comment on the specific designs of the F-15X, it is generally better to develop weapon systems from “an evolutionary approach.”

“Whenever the military possesses a proven basic design like the F-15, the Pentagon should focus its efforts on maintaining and improving it until the state of technology changes to the point where the basic design is no longer viable,” Grazier told Air Force Times. “Until that happens, there is no reason to continually reinvent the wheel. If it is possible to incorporate improved technology into a design that has already been bought and paid for, then it only makes financial and common sense to do so.”


I also think the Air Force should turn over the A-10's to the Army, as they don't really want to support such and excellent ground support aircraft



The U.S. Air Force Is Buying New F-15s After All



The U.S. Air Force will go ahead and buy brand-new F-15s even as it purchases large numbers of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Updated with the latest technology, the F-15X can carry nearly two dozen air-to-air missiles and will likely work together with stealth jets to take on fleets of enemy fighters.

An article at Bloomberg has revealed that the USAF will request eight F-15X fighters in its budget. The service plans to buy 80 fighters over five years. That's enough to fit out a wing of 72 aircraft, divided into three squadrons of 24 planes each, with eight spares. That's just the five-year projection, though, and the service may buy additional fighters beyond 2025.

The F-15X will come in two versions, a single-seat F-15CX and a twin-seat F-15EX. According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, other than crew size the two jets will be identical. Here's a Boeing promotional video for the F-15X, also known as Advanced Eagle.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
I'm betting it comes from a black program where earlier versions/ideas were well along. Something along the lines of the A-12/SR-71. Meaning all the kinks were/are worked out under a different agency and then taken over by the USAF where they can claim "development to deployment" in record time.

Hope it's true. We need the F-22's successor in short order.

--- End of line (MCP)
The only problem with the F-22 is cost and the low numbers.
The idea was the F-35 would be that fill in the gap 5th generation aircraft.
But again, cost and delays.
What is supposed to make the F-35 more affordable is the number of aircraft to be produced, particularly FMS sales.
That's a huge part of the problem, is low production rates. Production rates and closing production lines have been a sore point for decades.
I've seen programs go out on contract to order 28 aircraft, vendor opens production line for 28 new aircraft.
DoD / Congress, someone decides that instead of 28, maybe we only need 22. Then another change, and another cut.
At the end of the day, the 28 plane order is cut to 8 and now non-recurring costs are allocated to just 8 aircraft instead of 28.
Cost per aircraft jump. Then those costs get spread over every line item.
Hence the $50 coffee pot, the $75 hammer, etc.
Which then the political opportunists use to attack the program and the service. Give them a black eye and hope they get a funding cut.
Not that a politician would ever misrepresent anything, or a rival service would help feed the misconception.
 
Top