Why do fighters need to be so small if dogfighting is obsolete? Why not make a smaller, more stealthy AWACs platform and load it with missiles? Bigger plane = more fuel and missile load, and we've seen in the Israel-Iran war that Israel had problems with the F-35 lacking range.

>>63984772 (OP)
Fighters need to get fast quickly, climb, release missiles then quickly dive back down and turn the other way, and repeat that dance half a dozen times or more. So agility is still important. Also, they're necessarily exposed to danger, so putting 50 missiles on a big plane means you risk getting it shot down after it fired the first one, and losing half a billion dollars worth of assets in one shot. It's also tactically advantageous to have many planes with advanced sensors and potential launch directions, rather than a single one.

>>63984772 (OP)
Dogfighting might be 'obsolete' but maneuverability is not. You might not be getting stuck into the furball trying to get a guns kill on an enemy fighter, but at some point you will be trying to dodge missiles. Stealth is not absolute and there is a certain point that even the stealthiest aircraft can be seen by radar and therefore locked on. It might be a LOT closer than traditional BVR fights and ranges but you'll still want the ability notch missiles and turn as hard as you can.
Also:
>Stealth Awacs.... with a giant radar on top
C'mon man. Think about it a bit.

Why has no military plane tried to gamble On speed instesd we have ramjet and scrsmjet technology.

>>63984856
To do... what? Be an interceptor?

Its probably not going to have any loiter time whatsover at which point why is it any better than a SAM that you just stick your ram/scramjet on. It won't be able to sit and patrol and do anything, you'll be making a modern version of an English Electric Lightning and literally for what purpose? It won't be missile truck, it'll have no legs and no point. You would probably get more value out of having a conventional aircraft and then adding on a spare engine pod that it can ignite as a rocket booster rather than designing an SR-71 but with missiles.

>>63984772 (OP)
A combination of stealth, mobility, and avoiding an "Eggs in one basket" scenario.
>Stealth
Stealth measures are proportional to the object you're hiding. For reference, the B-2 Spirit has an average RCS of 0.2 m^2 while the F-35's is 0.001
>Mobility
Not just maneuverability but also cruise speed, top speed, climb rate, and endurance. Being able to simply run away from a missile until it runs out of fuel and inertia is a successful dodge in my book.
>eggs in one basket.
Accidents still happen. Stealth isn't perfect and jet engines still produce heat. Even if a big, 4 engine plane can take more hits than a fighter jet it's not many more hits and the last thing you want is your entire operation failing because one enemy fighter got lucky and found your AWACs

>>63984856
...You mean the SR-71 Blackbird? Or De Haviland Mosquito?

An AWACS can't be stealthy.

One of the main ways to detect airplanes is their radio emissions. An AWAVS is a giant radar in the sky therefore a big radio Christmas tree visible from hundreds of miles. Stealth aircraft do not use active radars (when infiltrating airspace), but rely on datalinks, optical and IR sensors that do not emit any radio waves and are completely passive.

Also, being small is a way of reducing radar signature.

>>63984856
The faster the speed the larger the turn.
China has some high speed toser concept that stay behind the lines of fighter doing oval all the time.

>>63984772 (OP)
You're not the first person to suggest this
>This transformation may be steadily reducing the utility of some attributes traditionally associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., extreme speed and maneuverability) while increasing the value of attributes not usually associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., sensor and weapon payload as well as range). Aircraft performance attributes essential for success in air-to-air combat during the gun and early missile eras such as high speed, good acceleration, and maneuverability are much less useful now that aircraft can be detected and engaged from dozens of miles away. At the same time, nontraditional attributes such as minimal radar and IR signature; space, payload, and cooling capacity; power for large-aperture long-range sensors; and very-long-range weapons seem to be of increased importance. Both supersonic speed and high maneuverability place significant constraints on aircraft designers and force tradeoffs in aircraft design that limit the incorporation of many of the nontraditional, but increasingly important attributes listed above.
https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf

>>63984772 (OP)
By this logic we should be building massive aerial battleships loaded with fuckhuge radar arrays, SAMs, lasers, and shitloads of UCAVs
also
>stealth AWACS
how do you suppose you make a stealthy aircraft that intentionally emits tons of radiation in every direction?

>>63984772 (OP)
>giant glowing christmas tree in the sky
>stealthy
????????

>>63984802
>>63984816
wrong

the real reason is the west is stuck in its old ways. china is developing bigger fighters now that can carry more fuel and missiles like the J36

>>63984772 (OP)

>it

Anon, never put all the eggs in one basket, especially when a technologically developed country waves military equipment in your eye.

>>63984772 (OP)
We considered something similar, fitting 12 AIM-54s and AWG-9 radar or 10 modified Sea Darts and a type 909 radar in a separate pod to Vulcans to defend the GIUK Gap, but the Tornado ADV turned out to be a better idea.

>>63984856
they did, but there are massive diminishing returns beyond a certain point, so they stopped.

>>63984879
A cursory Google search shows that the B-2 has an RCS of 0.0001, while the F-35 has an RCS of 0.001-0.005 (perhaps depending on estimate or angle or something). Despite being smaller, the F-35’s radar signature is 10 to 50 times greater, so it will be detected between 1.78 and 2.66 times further away, probably because it has a tail or something

>>63984890
>>63985109
You can have 2 stealthy AWACS in the air at a time and have one scan for a while, then go dark while the other scans.

>>63984772 (OP)
I think that's sort of what china plans to do with their weird 3 engine plane.

>>63984772 (OP)
The AWACS platform can't really be made stealthy. It lights up like a christmas tree due to the radar, so stealth is not on the table. Therefore it makes more sense to maximise the effect of the radar, so it can stay far away, and give it the range and endurance to stay up for a long time.

There is a point to making fighters larger though. The F-35 really is a bit too small to carry really long range AAMs.

>>63988773
>>63985114
>>63984890
merry christmas, bros

that's how it's developing except the missiles, sensors, and fuel are spread out over different drones.

>>63984772 (OP)
They don't need to be small anymore. F35 was too small and gimped on payload but got stealth.

You can see this from the 3-4 different next gen programs across the globe. All are much bigger than the F35 and even F22.

>>63984772 (OP)
Imagine the morale hit when you're about to graduate Fighter Jet School to fly F-22s only to hear were retrofitting all B-52s to carry point defense lasers and suicide drones, and offensive lasers and drones too in order to ground all of our fighters.

>>63987489
BVR really is beyond the ken of you chinkshills and thirdies

Forgetting OP's dumb idea for a sec...

Could you shoot down an AWACS with a HARM?

>>63990250
>During the Gulf War, the HARM was involved in a friendly fire incident when the pilot of an F-4G Wild Weasel escorting a B-52G bomber mistook the latter's tail gun radar for an Iraqi AAA site—this was after the tail gunner of the B-52 had targeted the F-4G, mistaking it for an Iraqi MiG. The F-4 pilot launched the missile and then saw that the target was the B-52, which was hit. It survived with shrapnel damage to the tail and no casualties. The B-52 (serial number 58-0248) was subsequently renamed In HARM's Way.[5]

>>63984958
Interesting read, that.

Anyone got any similarly data-driven analyses?

>>63990593
>was subsequently renamed In HARM's Way
Nice.

>>63987489
oh, you're just a retard then.