If Su-35s (with long range air to air missiles) become widely available to the Russian and Chinese air forces they may cause headaches to the limited numbers of F-22s (but F-35s and 3rd/4th generation Western fighters will help). See much larger image.
---
In Comments for a January 2016 Submarine Matters article Anonymous provided a large number of links and comments January 27-30, 2016. I’ve selected parts and made the odd comment in [...] brackets:
For the F-22, the fact that it's available in only limited numbers will be a problem if we have to fight multiple wars simultaneously, or if we get into a conflict with a power such as China, which can field overwhelming numbers of aircraft. [however China has onlymodest numbers of modern jet fighters compared to the F-16s, F-15sand other 4th generation Western fighters and many F-35s on the way].
See http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/11/05/is_a_missile_truck_the_solution_to_one_of_the_scariest_wargames_ever__107528.html :
"[The RAND study] analyzed a U.S.-China air war over Taiwan made the bold assumption that every air-to-air missile fired from a U.S. F-22 hit a Chinese fighter (100 percent kill rate) and that every Chinese missile missed the U.S. F-22s (0 percent kill rate). In their simulation, the United States still lost the fight. The F-22s ran out of missiles and the Chinese fighters were able to go after vulnerable tankers and command and control aircraft. A far more detailed simulation the following year showed the same results. Even though U.S. F-22s were pegged with a 27-to-1 qualitative advantage over Chinese fighters, their diminished numbers and the fact that they had to fight from long range meant the Chinese had vastly superior numbers and won the fight."
Hence, the interest in "missile trucks" which can provide fire support for the limited number of available F-22s. An early example of this concept was the proposed B-1R:
See http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/11/05/is_a_missile_truck_the_solution_to_one_of_the_scariest_wargames_ever__107528.html :
"[The RAND study] analyzed a U.S.-China air war over Taiwan made the bold assumption that every air-to-air missile fired from a U.S. F-22 hit a Chinese fighter (100 percent kill rate) and that every Chinese missile missed the U.S. F-22s (0 percent kill rate). In their simulation, the United States still lost the fight. The F-22s ran out of missiles and the Chinese fighters were able to go after vulnerable tankers and command and control aircraft. A far more detailed simulation the following year showed the same results. Even though U.S. F-22s were pegged with a 27-to-1 qualitative advantage over Chinese fighters, their diminished numbers and the fact that they had to fight from long range meant the Chinese had vastly superior numbers and won the fight."
Hence, the interest in "missile trucks" which can provide fire support for the limited number of available F-22s. An early example of this concept was the proposed B-1R:
The shelved B-1R "missile truck" concept.
---
---
When it became clear the B-1R wasn't going to be built, the use of longer-ranged missiles on the existing B-1s was considered:
"One of the recommendations by RAND in its latest study on Chinese air power, is to arm the B-1 bomber with 20 or more Patriot or SM-2 missiles in air-to- air role to engage Chinese fighters during a conflict in Taiwan. This strategy will allow the USAF to engage a large number of Chinese fighters beyond the range of their missiles and disengage before any survivors can react."
"As part of the Air-Sea Battle Concept, the LRS-Bcould act as a large missile platform working in concert with the F-22 and F35. Both smaller aircraft have limited internal bay capability and limited range. Upon confronting enemy air defenses during interdiction and anti-fleet operations, the smaller aircraft could act as spotters while a LRS-B defeats the initial wave of interceptors with air-to-air missiles, allowing the F-35 and F-22s to retain their weapons and carry a larger amount of strike weaponry."
Unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) are also being considered for the missile truck role, especially by the Navy, since UCAVs can be launched fromcarriers, while the LRS-B cannot:
It all sounds nice. But there's a problem! That problem is; the proliferation of stealth technology.
In addition to the Indo-Russian Stealth fighter effort the Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans, and even the Turksare working on their own Stealth designs.
Some of these projects will implode when it's discovered just how difficult and expensive it is to build a stealth aircraft.
But eventually, air battles will increasingly feature stealth fighters on both sides, which will shorten detection ranges and increase the chance of a close-in dogfight. This will deny us the luxury of showering our foes with long range AMRAAM shots before they get close.
Once that happens, the F-35, with it's poor dogfight performance, will be in trouble, but then again, so will everyone else, since all these new fighters will have helmet-mounted sights linked to all-aspect InfraRed Air to Air Missiles (IR AAMs) with high off-boresight capability. This will cause loss rates to approach 1:1 no matter what kind of fancy stealth tech the fighters have.
Once that happens, the F-35, with it's poor dogfight performance, will be in trouble, but then again, so will everyone else, since all these new fighters will have helmet-mounted sights linked to all-aspect InfraRed Air to Air Missiles (IR AAMs) with high off-boresight capability. This will cause loss rates to approach 1:1 no matter what kind of fancy stealth tech the fighters have.
Of course other technologies, such as lasers and AI, will also affect the situation, but it's too soon to determine exactly how.
As for the shape of future air battles, the only certainty is uncertainty.
An August 2015 youtube of the French Dassault Neuron UCAV. Competition for US X-47 project?
---
The following is all from Pete:
Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV)
"The Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) represents a more advanced and deadlier offshoot of the tried-and-true Unmanned Aerial Vehicle aircraft group." See examples.
The Northrop-Grumman X-47B may be the most developed multi-role UCAV so far, but much more development is required. A related project was the Boeing X-45 UCAV.
The General Atomics Reaper can be seen as the most developed and used ground attack UAV-UCAV.
The Boeing X-37 "Spaceplane" can be seen as highly mobile "surprise" spy satellite and potentially a bomber.
 |
An artist’s conception of Boeing’s UCAV-UCLASS which could perhaps first be used in the Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System (CBARS) role. (Courtesy US Naval Institute) --- |
The US Naval Institute (Feb 2, 2016) reporteda use for 6th generation UCAVs in a more immediate timeframe:
“The Navy’s [carrier launched UCAVs called] Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) effort is being retooled as primarily a carrier-based unmanned aerial refueling platform — one of several Pentagon directed naval aviation mandates in the service’s Fiscal Year 2017 budget submission.
The shift from UCLASS to the new Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System (CBARS) will be made alongside an additional buy of Boeing F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets over the next several years and accelerated purchases and development of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).”
Developing the F-35s and introducing UCAVs is a big ask for the large but tight US defense budget.
LRS-B or perhaps closer F-35 lead disposable UCAVs, such as the Predator C - Avengers (above) may be practicle in the late 2020s. This is called "bot herding". Good for contested air space?
Developing the F-35s and introducing UCAVs is a big ask for the large but tight US defense budget.
LRS-B or perhaps closer F-35 lead disposable UCAVs, such as the Predator C - Avengers (above) may be practicle in the late 2020s. This is called "bot herding". Good for contested air space?
Anonymous and Pete