Usaf narrows down required technologies for pca

Those.of you looking for a dogfighter in the penetrating counter air (f-22 replacment) should just go get beers and cry in them. Likewise, it doesn't sound good for those.hoping for fastmovers either.

The USAF has.narrowed down the tech they want for the pca. Even more stealth, much longer range (to accompany the b-21), and much more efficient engines are at the top of the list. They stayed a bigger airframe is needed. That kills the agility and the increased stealthiness kills fast moving.

They declining to state what weapons though.

PCA is going to be a big Bird.

aviationweek.com... N1000001399920&utm_campaign=11369&utm_medium=email&elq2=bc8e0172401b49c2ab99f61142d03865

a reply to: anzha
Supersonic in a mach 1.6 or 1.8 is still possible on a big Platform with futur 2 aetp engine , 2 engine more powerful than the F-135 can easily push a big Platform beyond mach 1. There is a need for speed to intercept the futur 5th gen fighter to escort the B-21.

Right on the money. The obvious solution is to give the B-21 an AA capability. Imagine a combination of forward deployed AEW UAVs controlled by a 'bomber' carrying air launched ERAMs... combine it with MSDM - who would ever need Air Superiority Fighters again?

a reply to: darksidius

The elephant in the room is whether or not 100 kw lasers will be small enough and ready enough for a fast developed pca.

If they are, then how intercepts are conducted will be really different.

Makes it an escort fighter.

Hey i dont have a membership to aviation week.

Could you give a run down on what the article mentioned. You said it will probably be big and have a DEW if they can manage it. Any other tid bits?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Mostly radically improved engines, probably from the AETP program.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Im waiting for Magjets

a reply to: Zaphod58

So follow my logic here.

They want a PCA to escort B21s and sensor shooter stuff.

It needs to be at least as stealthy as the B21 if not more so.

It will likely be the size of a B21.

They want advanced engines.

They want to do the DEW thing.

Rumor has it the lockheed/Boeing entry for the LRSB was pretty bad ass. As stealthy if not more so than the B21. Had the same range as the B21. Perhaps even transonic ability for dashes up to mach 1.1ish. Built and designed with proven tech from prior programs. Looked cool even. Some say it was such a good bird that it shuold have won the LRSB contract. Shes big enough to hold munitions and a DEW. lockheed has had lots of experience outfitting their aircraft with advanced turbines and propulsion tech. I mean look at the real tech behind the greenladies propulsion. Range, speed, beaucoup power supply. Want stealth, ill be dambed if lockheed couldnt build a stealthy aircraft. Want aural mitigation thermal mitigation, lockheed can do all that.

So why not make some tweaks to the lockheed LRSB entrant(is that a word, entrant?) and call her the new PCA

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Why not?

Per airframe cost.

We need ~800, not 200.

Why dou you think the US needs 800 PCA? 200 should be more than enough to play B-21 escort against China.
And if you want to use an LRSB entry, you go with the one you are already building.
Way cheaper and nobody has to know about it...

a reply to: BASSPLYR

www.operatorchan.org...

Maybe something like these two ?

a reply to: BASSPLYR
Greatly pragmatic and may be with the same engine for B-21 and PCA to reduce the cost.

a reply to: mightmight

Its intended as a F-22 replacement. Sorta. There will be lots of missions besides escorting the B-21s. The F-22 was intended to be procured in that number. It was the end of the cold war that greatly delayed and reduced the buy. Well, and our wars in Asia/middle east.

a reply to: anzha
They killed further F-22 procurement to save the F-35 IMO.

Sure, the US needs to replace F-15Cs and F-22s but the hope of replacing them on a one to one basis with the PCA is far fetched. They are already looking at retiring the entire F-15C fleet without any real replacement within the next decade.
And while quantity is important, its far less important than provided capabilitys.
Today an F-15c can haul 8 AAMs for something like 1000miles using a pretty decent AESA radar. An F-22 has less range (especially if you get cute with supercruise), carries a similiar weapons load uses a comparable radar system. And its VLO of course.
Both air fleets need significant tanker support do operate over the vastness that is the Western Pacific Region- lets be honest, nobody besides China matters when it comes to the PCA at this point. Due to doctrine and limited weapons load they also need to be deployed in significant numbers, straining an also limited number of air bases in the Region.
Or to put it more bluntly, the amount of sorties you can generate against the Chinese A2AD umbrella using tactical fighter jets with tanker support will be very small if you have to fly out of Andersen. It basically wont work. Especially if the Chinese have a working brain and go after the tankers.

Thats why a larger platform with a greater range and larger weapons load would make so much sense. An LRSB sized platform would be able to carry dozens of extremely long ranged BVR AAMs over far greater distances. You dont need to deploy it in small numbers, a single LRSB sized PCA platform could easily do the job of a dozen Air Superiority fighters sanitizing the air space to get the bomber carrier in striking range.
Purchasing such a platform might not be cheap, but operating it is far cheaper than deploying entire squadrons of tactical fighter jets with tanker support.

Of course just using a modified B-21 to provide a penetrating counter air capability is not sexy enough and wouldnt funnel enough money to the right companies.