USAF Wants a 'Penetrating Counter-Air' System Within 14 years

a reply to: Zaphod58

Boeing's concept seems still like a fighter:

aviationweek.com...

www.nextbigfuture.com...

a reply to: anzha
Yes it is , but a big fighter .

a reply to: anzha

That's F-XX or F/A-XX, not PCA.

a reply to: Fastmover

There's not a lot I can say right now, because too much is still up in the air about what capabilities they want as opposed to what they need. But if what I've heard about the door kicker is accurate, and the sources it's from have been good so far, buckle up, it's gonna be a fun ride.

a reply to: Zaphod58
If only for the aviation fan in me i hope this turns out to be one of those reference designs that really makes the difference, like P51 or F15 were.

a reply to: Fastmover

Oh it'll be a game changer for sure.

I trust you

This is what is in the white world:

It will probably get an "F" designation, but won't be a traditional fighter.
It will be larger, with longer range than current fighters.
PCA won't be just a new aircraft. A year long study identified several shortfalls, including penetrating and standoff systems.
The goal is to build a massive battlefield network using multiple platforms.
The first systems will be at least in testing by next summer

Speculation:

Several designs are being looked at for aircraft, although nothing has been flown yet.
Said aircraft will perform multiple missions including SEAD/DEAD.

Just dont the Navy near it..

a reply to: Blackfinger
Why? Its the perfect program for them to get a 2000 feet long carrier to base this thing.

a reply to: Fastmover

After it goes from PCA to ISR with limited strike, to unmanned tanker, to God only knows, and enters service 20 years late, with the carrier 10 years behind it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
This is what is in the white world:

It will probably get an "F" designation, but won't be a traditional fighter.
It will be larger, with longer range than current fighters.
PCA won't be just a new aircraft. A year long study identified several shortfalls, including penetrating and standoff systems.
The goal is to build a massive battlefield network using multiple platforms.
The first systems will be at least in testing by next summer

Speculation:

Several designs are being looked at for aircraft, although nothing has been flown yet.
Said aircraft will perform multiple missions including SEAD/DEAD.

I suggest "F-1XX Aardwolf".

Check this:link

a reply to: Zaphod58
Propulsion? Weapons? I think it's time to speculate as to what you're hinting at.

I say it's propulsion. Stealth has been around long enough that someone surely has a detection method in the works so if you can develop a new type of propulsion that makes your system faster than defensive weaponry then you're one step ahead again.

That is, until the Chinese figure out AtA or GtA lasers.

Is PCA like the UK FOAS (which was dropped). Like Taranis and Neuron, a concept aircraft to help decide a future force mix?

I can imagine the US is far ahead and Taranis doesn't have the required legs in its current format but that is exactly what I would consider this is, unmanned, attack focused rather than optical surveillance, quiet, fast and packed with sensors. Flying low enough to soak up data (so not a global hawk type system) and super stealth operating only at night.

a reply to: Forensick

PCA will be a whole new system. It's not going to be a demonstrator.

a reply to: anzha

With the availability of big data tools, machine learning, and the advancements in both hardware and software networking there is no telling what kind of concept aircraft they could come up with.

Not only that, but it's also cost effective. This reads like someone clued the USAF in on Moore's Law and they had an epiphany that their current acquisition plans are obsolete. That's the way it reads to me at least.

I'd love to see what they can come up with beyond the F22.

a reply to: gpols

There's a bit of a battle going on right now in the Pentagon. You have the old school, damn the torpedoes, buy it regardless of cost and do what you have to do to pay for it on one side, and the new school, we need to keep costs under control so we can afford everything we need on the other.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Which camp are you in?

I like the new school keep costs under control line of thought while also looking for options that give us the same capabilities in unconventional platforms.

I'd image as the soldiers that have put in their 20 or 30 years start to retire and the younger crop start rising in the ranks the new school mentality will eventually prevail.

a reply to: gpols

A little bit of both. We need new capabilities, while keeping the older platforms going until the new stuff is ready to go. We need the new capabilities no matter what, but we need to keep the costs under control.