A new force structure?

[Lawman]

Mods…. The forum is doing that weird shit again.

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, brabus said:

Give the tankers a capable, kinetic missile defense system and WGAF if they get shot at. LO not required. 

Yes.  If a Viper can have one a tanker could probably have at least 2

Link together and bring back combat box formations to jam and laze together for threats that get thru the HVAA drone defenders

1 hour ago, StoleIt said:

build bigger fighters, I dunno...let's call them interceptors...and stuff them with enough gas to make it the fight and back (ie: MIG-25/31, F-14, J-20, etc). A lot easier than building LO tankers, IMO.

New interceptors with adaptive cycle engines would do nicely, IMHO this new hypothetical interceptor would not need to get to Mach 3.69 but would be built to supercruise better than anything else and dash as required (accelerate and hold Mach 2.0 for 5 minutes say to cover 100 NM, shoot or evade)

Still, a new type is likely financially prohibitive right now with the programs already in motion but if you could get partners and share equally the design and manufacturing with the other likely interested nations (Japan, Aussies, maybe Canada and other Arctic allies for anticipated problems with Russia/China there) for a very long range fighter interceptor you might get a program that could be shoehorned in

[StoleIt]

6 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

A jet that's big, fast, guzzles fuel, has poor turn performance, and poor cockpit visibility is every fighter pilot dream. If we just make them big enough to be nuclear powered they won't even need to carry their own fuel!

I think with the advances in technology we could design something fast as hell, stealthy, and still able to turn (YF-23). Just don't put a lift fan in middle of it...

[FourFans]

How's about we develop and unmanned long range interceptor that self immolates on merging with the intercepted target?  We could call it the AIM-174 or AIM-260...

All joking aside, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the use of space based assets in the future of air dominance.

Edited November 11 by FourFans

[Boomer6]

3 hours ago, StoleIt said:

I think with the advances in technology we could design something fast as hell, stealthy, and still able to turn (YF-23). Just don't put a lift fan in middle of it...

I commend your optimism, but we can't even design a jet trainer with an ffing boarding ladder...

[raimius]

Don't worry we are designing a pubs-case stowable ladder for the F-16.  It'll only cost a little over $500k to prototype...

 

 

Not joking...

[SocialD]

8 hours ago, raimius said:

Don't worry we are designing a pubs-case stowable ladder for the F-16.  It'll only cost a little over $500k to prototype...

 

 

Not joking...

 

Could probably swing by the sheet metal shop and have one built for some SQ swag and a few cases of beer.

[Boomer6]

Just buy a rope and tie some knots in it..

[brabus]

15 hours ago, FourFans said:

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the use of space based assets in the future of air dominance.

I mean, you know it’s a thing…and that’s all there is to say about that.

[HuggyU2]

On 11/10/2024 at 8:30 PM, Lawman said:

If we can teach helicopters to land in the dust unmanned (and we have) teaching it to get on the boom or into the basket is easy.

Haha, yeah, right.  Total pipe dream.

You're probably one of those guys that thinks a spaceship can fly itself back to the launchpad and land in a pair of "chopsticks".  

Ridiculous.  

[Boomer6]

On 11/11/2024 at 10:15 AM, Clark Griswold said:

but if you could get partners and share equally the design and manufacturing with the other likely interested nations (Japan, Aussies, maybe Canada and other Arctic allies for anticipated problems with Russia/China there) for a very long range fighter interceptor you might get a program that could be shoehorned in

Our past forays into joint fighter design have went so well, we should definitely spend billions doing it again.

[Clark Griswold]

58 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

Our past forays into joint fighter design have went so well, we should definitely spend billions doing it again.

Your skepticism is not unwarranted but light a candle.  We could learn from the past debacles and keep it fairly straight forward for the joint basic part of the aircraft with X percent up to each nation to customize as they want.

Airframe, engines and flight systems all standard.  Sensors, weapons and mission gear build what you want.  Open architecture with capacity to accommodate different requirements.

Delta wing for fuel, speed and high altitude performance.  Twin engine for payload.  Twin weapons bays for range and endurance.

Interceptor and stand-off strike / patrol platform.  

[Boomer6]

I genuinely don't know if you guys are trolling with a joint interceptor concept..

The massive waste of money attempting to re-imagine the cold war interceptor, now this time as a joint project, is so painfully ignorant of all we've learned, or should have learned, regarding aircraft design/procurement that congress would probably approve it.

[FourFans]

[Clark Griswold]

I genuinely don't know if you guys are trolling with a joint interceptor concept..
The massive waste of money attempting to re-imagine the cold war interceptor, now this time as a joint project, is so painfully ignorant of all we've learned, or should have learned, regarding aircraft design/procurement that congress would probably approve it.

I post in good faith no troll or shit posting
Is it the joint or the interceptor part or both of this tangent you find a problem with?
Interceptors of late have found some success and one of our competitors (China) clearly thinks they’ll be of value with their J-20. That’s an interceptor all but in name.
The Russians have scored a few kills (unfortunately) with the MiG 31 and the R-37 with BVR shots.
I’m not saying build a large platform with no EM Theory influence or to make this a substitute for a Raptor 2.0 / NGAD but look into it at least.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LookieRookie]

11 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

I genuinely don't know if you guys are trolling with a joint interceptor concept..

The massive waste of money attempting to re-imagine the cold war interceptor, now this time as a joint project, is so painfully ignorant of all we've learned, or should have learned, regarding aircraft design/procurement that congress would probably approve it.

I mean I appreciate Clark’s engagement; however, his MO is these kind of proposals.

[Clark Griswold]

I mean I appreciate Clark’s engagement; however, his MO is these kind of proposals.

Guilty as charged
I’ll agree I’m a fan / zealot for new or retro mod iron but in this case of Indo-Pacific contingencies what we have now just has an Achilles heel that could best be addressed IMHO with a new platform(s)
That could be the fighting platform(s), support platform(s) or both


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boomer6]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Is it the joint or the interceptor part or both of this tangent you find a problem with?

Both have proven terribly inefficient.

I'd rather we spend money strapping some AIM-174/260/XXX to a submarine and launch those suckers via the ECS with third party targeting from radars mounted on multiple dirigibles across the Pacific..

[Clark Griswold]

Both have proven terribly inefficient.
I'd rather we spend money strapping some AIM-174/260/### to a submarine and launch those suckers via the ECS with third party targeting from radars mounted on multiple dirigibles across the Pacific..

Inefficient is not not necessarily ineffective though
Referring to last and biggest joint venture ever, the F-35, there are problems however one can argue it’s effective
Could it be better or also have been executed better of course
Not to derail on a chat about the F-35

Why did countries (Russia and at one time the USA) develop interceptors? They had a vast operational area to cover, Russia their northern approaches from our bombers over the pole and vice versa, sounds a lot like the Indo-Pacific region. The speed and range either destroyed the launching platform or gave them a shot at the stand off weapons they launched.
The same is true today with the benefit of longer operational ranges giving the bases used by them a little more stand back range also.
Wiki says Typhoon has a 750 NM range with 10 min on station in an air defense mission, a clean sheet design would be nice but I see no reason why the Typhoon could not be adapted for this.
No weapons bays but you can’t get everything you want. Still in production, stretch add conformal tanks, focus on range, CCA control and add conformal capability to hold 3 AIM-174s. 0.01 % chance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk