It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Air Force requests funding for low cost fighter experiment

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
The Air Force has officially requested funding for their low cost fighter experiment, through supplemental funding. The experiment is a continuation of the SOCOM Combat Dragon II program, which demonstrated OV-10G+ aircraft, in an anti-insurgent role. NASA loaned two aircraft to the military, and the Navy refitted them with a digital cockpit and laser guided weapons.

The new experiment will present data from Combat Dragon II to the industry, and use that as a baseline for requirements. They are looking at an existing commercial platform that can be fit into the role. The Air Force frequently pushes that role onto its partners, since it doesn't require something fast and sexy, but is now realizing how important it can be in uncontested airspace.


The US Air Force has requested funding for a low-cost fighter experiment in its supplemental budget request, indicating the service is serious about finding a close air support alternative.

During a 23 February speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, USAF chief Gen David Goldfein told the audience the experiment would not cost much money. In January, Goldfein said the USAF would run an experiment in the spring assessing off-the-shelf options to fill a low-end fighter role.

The experiment would continue a previous US Special Operations Command effort known as Combat Dragon II, which demonstrated whether the Vietnam-era OV-10 Bronco could be fielded in counter-insurgency operations over Afghanistan. NASA loaned two North American Rockwell OV-10G+to SOCOM in 2013 and the US Navy outfitted with them with a digital cockpit and laser-guided precision weapons.

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

God, I hope this goes somewhere.

I'd love to see the OV-10 come back, but something based off of a Texan II, Pilatus or Super Tucano could be an amazing low-cost fighter (and probably the flying equivalent of a Lotus 7 for the lucky pilots who fly it).



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I hope so, cheap simplier aircraft that are reliable and can be mass produced is what wins war. Not Superior tech. Look at the German Me262 and look at Vietnam. Number win everytime. The F35 is a great product of engineering but it wont win wars.

The ruggered versatility of the CDII is its biggest strenght still to this day being a kitted-up light aircraft to support ground troops from quickly prepared airfields.






edit on 23-2-2017 by muSSang because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: muSSang
I hope so, cheap simplier aircraft that are reliable and can be mass produced is what wins war. Not Superior tech. Look at the German Me262 and look at Vietnam. Number win everytime. The F35 is a great product of engineering but it wont win wars.

The ruggered versatility of the CDII is its biggest strenght still to this day being a kitted-up light aircraft to support ground troops from quickly prepared airfields.


F-35, F-22, and B-2/B-21 are designed to win air superiority early and quickly so the 4th gen can get in and work. This will change when we get more 5th gen.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

The germans thought the same thing with the ME262. And that was a bigger leap than the conventional tech at the time.

Numbers have always beat tech, Vietnam the North were out teched look what happened you lost because of numbers another good example of tech vs numbers is the Panzerkampfwagen vs the t34.

The f35 program is six years behind schedule and tens of billions of dollars over budget. The flash plugins failed..... You can say what you like but the evidence is contrary. Where are they?

edit on 23-2-2017 by muSSang because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: muSSang

And 145:7, in a high EW/integrated defense environment is a show huh. Taking out defenses that would have had Blue Force throwing cruise missiles at them to whittle them down is a show huh. Yes it's behind budget, so is everyone else's program. The F-35 is operational, and is proving that it's going to be exceptional when it matures.

We're past the point where you can throw 1000 bombers at a single target, and lose 43 or more of them. Yes, quantity is its own quality, but throwing hundreds of fourth generation fighters at a target, or thousands of cruise missiles at it, and taking huge loses will break your military too.


edit on 2/23/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

All its air-defence eggs, along with those of most of its allies — are now in the one F-35 Lightning II basket. It’s too big to fail. There are no fallback options.



Its revealed the next generation stealth jet won’t be allowed to fire its gun until 2019




In ‘stealth’ mode, the F-35 can carry only two bombs and two anti-aircraft missiles. Its potentially equally sneaky opponents appear to be able to carry up to eight.


China and Russia are on the right path.



China and Russia are also pressing ahead with their 5th Generation fighter programs. Russia states it will have no less than 55 new T-50 stealth fighters operational by 2020. They’re also not limited by building only one airframe: China is working on no less than four designs.


Numbers count and because it was designed 16 years ago its already out of date, none of these differences can be improved through upgrades.


edit on 23-2-2017 by muSSang because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: muSSang

No, they aren't. The F-22 can do limited air to ground, and the B-21 and B-2 both will do SEAD as well as the F-35.

The gun is largely irrelevant. There hasn't been a gun kill in air to air almost since Vietnam, and even in air to ground it's not used a lot, unless other weapons have been used up, with the exception of the A-10, which was designed to use its gun as its primary weapon.

It's opponents are interceptors and pure fighters, which puts them in the class of the F-22. They're primary mission is air to air, and they MIGHT have a limited air to ground role, like the F-22, which also carries up to 8 missiles. The J-20 is designed to use range and speed to attack high value targets like the E-3 and KC-135s. It's not designed to dogfight with other fighters. Both the J-20 and J-31 appear to lag years behind the F-35 in the sensor role. They're years ahead of other platforms they operate, but haven't reached the F-35 level. The T-50 is a pure dogfighter, and is an LO as opposed to VVLO like the F-35. It focuses on mostly frontal aspect stealth, and maneuverability.

The F-35 is far from out of date. It has the best stealth of any fighter platform, especially from the frontal aspect, and the sensor fusion is years beyond anything else flying. They didn't design it, and go, "Ok, it's designed, don't touch anything and build it exactly like this". They've made a lot of changes as they go, including replacing the EODAS, with a newer, more effective version, that can see farther, and more clearly than anything else flying.

As for the "2 bombs" again, it depends on the weapons carried. They can carry cruise missiles, bombs, or the SDB, which will increase their payload to 8 bombs. Send an aircraft after a target, and you should only need one weapon. You send multiple aircraft in the package, with one releasing its weapons, and the others go to other targets near it. It's the way it's always been done.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Nope payload while maiting stealth is only 2. Anymote it loses stealth ability. Kinda defeats the purpose of an air to air stealth platform when it can only carry a duo, and no gun.
edit on 23-2-2017 by muSSang because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: muSSang

Wrong. As I said, it depends on the weapon. That's the entire point of the SDB. It's the Small Diameter Bomb so that they can carry more of them on a weapons rack. The SDB-1 will reach full operational capability this year, and the SDB-II by 2022. The F-35B will be able to carry four of them, because they have a smaller weapons bay due to the lift fan, and the A and C model will carry 8 of them.


This initial certification will be for Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) and Advanced Air to Air Missiles (AMRAAM). At Block 3, it will be certified for the remainder of SDD weapons to include Small Diameter Bombs (SDB). It can carry up to eight small diameter bombs internally. SDB II will be the first weapon re-configured for 5th Generation aircraft.

www.sldinfo.com...

How does it lose stealth capability if it carries more than 2? They're carried internally. There is no ability for radar to go through the bay doors if it's carrying more than 2 bombs.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Wrong again.

As i said while maintaining stealth, plus none will be fitted until 2022.




it can't fit a full load of Small Diameter Bomb IIs in its weapons bay. What's worse is that even though the USMC will declare the F-35B operational this year, it won't be until 2022 that the problem will hopefully be fixed.

edit on 23-2-2017 by muSSang because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: muSSang

By then the 5th generation from concept 2001 to 2022.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: muSSang

What part of "internally" and "in its weapons bay" do you not understand? If you carry 8 weapons internally that doesn't suddenly make you more visible to radar. It still maintains stealth if they're carried internally. It even says right there where you quoted, in its weapons bay. That means internally.

And the 2022 is for the SDB II. If you read what I said just above your last post, the SDB I will be operational this year. The difference between the two is that the II has a trimode seeker.



That sure looks like more than two bombs inside an F-35 weapons bay to me.
edit on 2/24/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: muSSang

And you think that nothing else has taken years to develop and reach FOC?



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 11:49 PM
link   
numbers don't beat tech. force multipliers vs force multipliers.

10,000 me-262 would get whooped by 1,000 f-22's, with minimal casualties to the f-22's.

Today's wars are won and lost in politics. The US military places various rules on itself to stay politically correct and follow the geneva convention.

If the US faced total war against north vietmanese or iraq or the taliban their whole populations would cease to exist. The

In the modern world we use tech to minimize collateral damage instead of being a force multiplier.

Against other major powers, the force multiplier is a deterrent against each other. War would be much different against a major power when the threat to the homeland is real.

In a war against china or russia american reporters won't be on balconies reporting live about the presidents palace getting bombed a mile away.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 11:54 PM
link   

edit on 2/24/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

As it stands now, the F-35 would need to run away from combat and have other planes come to its rescue, since it “will need support to locate and avoid modern threats, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to outstanding performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage available (i.e., two bombs and two air-to-air missiles).”

Plenty of info on the internet. It loses stealth capability.
link

edit on 24-2-2017 by muSSang because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: jellyrev
numbers don't beat tech. force multipliers vs force multipliers.

10,000 me-262 would get whooped by 1,000 f-22's, with minimal casualties to the f-22's.

Today's wars are won and lost in politics. The US military places various rules on itself to stay politically correct and follow the geneva convention.

If the US faced total war against north vietmanese or iraq or the taliban their whole populations would cease to exist. The

In the modern world we use tech to minimize collateral damage instead of being a force multiplier.

Against other major powers, the force multiplier is a deterrent against each other. War would be much different against a major power when the threat to the homeland is real.

In a war against china or russia american reporters won't be on balconies reporting live about the presidents palace getting bombed a mile away.



Thats getting a bit silly 70 years is not a comparison.

M262 vs allied aircraft piston vs jet numbers one.

Now please give me an example of tech beating numbers instead of imaging one.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muSSang

And you think that nothing else has taken years to develop and reach FOC?


21 years and still not combat ready, maybe by 2019



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: muSSang

Except it IS combat ready. Once it reaches IOC it's combat ready. Both the A and B have passed IOC.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join