Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37

Thread: The Sixth Generation Fighter

  1. #1
    Sheep dog standing before wolves The Dane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fyrkat-Jutland
    Posts
    16,072

    Default The Sixth Generation Fighter

    By John A. Tirpak
    Executive Editor


    The technologies are emerging, but what’s needed is a program to pull them together.

    Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth generation [fighter] capabilities necessary for future air dominance.” The Secretary of the Air Force, Michael B. Donley, and the USAF Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, issued that statement in an April 13 Washington Post article.

    The Air Force may have to move a little faster to develop that next generation fighter. While anticipated F-22 and F-35 inventories seem settled, there won’t be enough to fix shortfalls in the fighter fleet over the next 20 years, as legacy fighters retire faster than fifth generation replacements appear.

    The Air Force will have to answer a host of tough questions about the nature of the next fighter.

    Should it provide a true “quantum leap” in capability, from fifth to sixth generation, or will some interim level of technology suffice? When will it have to appear? What kinds of fighters will potential adversaries be fielding in the next 20 years? And, if the program is delayed, will a defense industry with nothing to work on in the meantime lose its know-how to deliver the needed system?

    What seems certain is that more is riding on the Air Force’s answers than just replacing worn-out combat aircraft.

    Initial concept studies for what would become the F-22 began in the early 1980s, when production of the F-15 was just hitting its stride. It took 20 years to go from those concepts to initial operational capability.

    Industry leaders believe that it will probably take another 20 years to field a next generation fighter.

    That may be late to need. By 2030, according to internal USAF analyses, the service could be as many as 971 aircraft short of its minimum required inventory of 2,250 fighters. That assumes that all planned F-35s are built and delivered on time and at a rate of at least 48 per year. The shortfall is due to the mandatory retirement of F-15s and F-16s that will have exceeded their service lives and may no longer be safe to fly.

    Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has set the tone for the tactical aviation debate. He opposed the F-22 as being an expensive, “exquisite” solution to air combat requirements, and has put emphasis on the less costly F-35 Lightning II instead. He considers it exemplary of the kind of multirole platforms, applicable to a wide variety of uses, that he believes the US military should be buying in coming years. He and his technology managers have described this approach as the “75 percent” solution.

    Gates has also forecast that a Russian fifth generation fighter will be operational in 2016—Russia says it will fly the fighter this year—and a Chinese version just four years later. Given that US legacy fighters are already matched or outclassed by “generation four-plus-plus” fighters, if Russia and China build their fifth generation fighters in large numbers, the US would be at a clear airpower disadvantage in the middle of the 2020s. That’s a distinct possibility, as both countries have openly stated their intentions to build world-class air fleets. If they do, the 75 percent solution fails.

    What You See Is What You Get
    The Air Force declined to offer official comment on the status of its sixth generation fighter efforts. Privately, senior leaders have said they have been waiting to see how the F-22 and F-35 issues sorted out before establishing a structured program for a next generation fighter.

    The Air Force has a large classified budget, but it seems there is no “black” sixth generation fighter program waiting in the wings. A senior industry official, with long-term, intimate knowledge of classified efforts, said the F-22 wasn’t stopped at 187 aircraft because a secret, better fighter is nearly ready to be deployed. He said, “What you see is what you get.”

    That opinion was borne out in interviews with the top aeronautic technologists of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, the three largest remaining US airframers. They said they were unaware of an official, dedicated Air Force sixth generation fighter program and are anxiously waiting to see what capabilities the service wants in such a fighter.

    The possibilities for a sixth generation fighter seem almost the stuff of science fiction.

    It would likely be far stealthier than even the fifth generation aircraft. It may be able to change its shape in flight, “morphing” to optimize for either speed or persistence, and its engines will likely be retunable in-flight for efficient supersonic cruise or subsonic loitering.

    The sixth generation fighter will likely have directed energy weapons—high-powered microwaves and lasers for defense against incoming missiles or as offensive weapons themselves. Munitions would likely be of the “dial an effect” type, able to cause anything from impairment to destruction of an air or ground target.

    Materials and microelectronics technologies would combine to make the aircraft a large integrated sensor, possibly eliminating the need for a nose radar as it is known today. It would be equipped for making cyber attacks as well as achieving kinetic effects, but would still have to be cost-effective to make, service, and modify.

    Moreover, the rapid advancement of unmanned aircraft technologies could, in 20 years or so, make feasible production of an autonomous robotic fighter. However, that is considered less likely than the emergence of an uninhabited but remotely piloted aircraft with an off-board “crew,” possibly comprising many operators.

    Not clear, yet, is whether the mission should be fulfilled by a single, multirole platform or a series of smaller, specialized aircraft, working in concert.

    “I think this next round [of fighter development] is probably going to be dominated by ever-increasing amounts of command and control information,” said Paul K. Meyer, vice president and general manager of Northrop Grumman’s Advanced Programs and Technology Division.

    Meyer forecast that vast amounts of data will be available to the pilot, who may or may not be on board the aircraft. The pilot will see wide-ranging, intuitive views of “the extended world” around the aircraft, he noted. The aircraft will collect its own data and seamlessly fuse it with off-board sensors, including those on other aircraft. The difference from fifth generation will be the level of detail and certainty—the long-sought automatic target recognition.

    Directed Energy Weapons

    Embedded sensors and microelectronics will also make possible sensor arrays in “locations that previously weren’t available because of either heat or the curvature of the surface,” providing more powerful and comprehensive views of the battlefield, Meyer noted. Although the aircraft probably won’t be autonomous, he said, it will be able to “learn” and advise the pilot as to what actions to take—specifically, whether a target should be incapacitated temporarily, damaged, or destroyed.

    Traditional electronics will probably give way to photonics, said Darryl W. Davis, president of Boeing’s advanced systems division.

    “You could have fewer wires,” said Davis. “You’re on a multiplexed, fiber-optic bus ... that connects all the systems, and because you can do things at different wavelengths of light, you can move lots of data around airplanes much faster, with much less weight in terms of ... wire bundles.”

    Fiber optics would also be resistant to jamming or spoofing of data and less ****e to cyber attack.
    A “digital wingman” could accompany the main fighter as an extra sensor-shooter smart enough to take verbal instructions, Meyer forecasted.

    Directed energy weapons could play a big role in deciding how agile a sixth generation fighter would have to be, Meyer noted. “Speed of light” weapons, he added, could “negate” the importance of “the maneuverability we see in today’s fashionable fighters.” There won’t be time to maneuver away from a directed energy attack.

    Pulse weapons could also fry an enemy aircraft’s systems—or those of a ground target. Based on what “we have seen and we make at Northrop Grumman,” Meyer said, “in the next 20 years ... that type of technology is going to be available.”

    With an appropriate engine—possibly an auxiliary engine—on board to provide power for directed energy weapons, there could be an “unlimited magazine” of shots, Meyer said.

    Hypersonics—that is, the ability of an air vehicle to travel at five times the speed of sound, or faster—has routinely been suggested as an attribute of sixth generation fighters, but the industry leaders are skeptical the capability will be ready in time.

    While there have been some successes with experimental hypersonic propulsion, the total amount of true hypersonic flying time is less than 15 minutes, and the leap to an operational fighter in 20 years might be a leap too far.

    “It entails a whole new range of materials development, due to ... sensors, fuzes, apertures, etc.,” Meyer noted, “all of which must operate in that intense heat environment at ... Mach 5-plus.”

    Still, “it is indeed an option that we would consider” because targets will be fleeting and require quick, surgical strikes at great distances. However, such an approach would probably be incompatible with a loitering capability.

    Davis said he thinks hypersonics “will start to show up in sixth generation,” but not initially as the platform’s power plant, but rather in the aircraft’s kinetic munitions.

    “I think it will start with applications to weapons,” Davis said. And they may not necessarily be just weapons but “high-speed reconnaissance platforms for short missions on the way to the target.”

    Because of the extreme speed of hypersonic platforms and especially directed energy weapons, Davis thinks it will be critical to have “persistent eyes on target” because speed-of-light weapons can’t be recalled “once you’ve pulled the trigger,” and even at hypersonic speed, a target may move before the weapon arrives. That would suggest a flotilla of stealthy drones or sensors positioned around the battlefield.

    Not only will hypersonics require years more work, Davis said it must be combined with other, variable-cycle engines that will allow an aircraft to take off from sea level, climb to high altitude, and then engage a hypersonic engine. Those enabling propulsion elements are not necessarily near at hand in a single package.

    The sixth generation fighter, whatever it turns out to be, will still be a machine and will need to be serviced, repaired, and modified, according to Neil Kacena, deputy director of Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works advanced projects division. He is less confident that major systems such as radar will be embedded in the aircraft skin.

    “If the radar doesn’t work, and now you have to take the wing off, ... then that may not be the technology that will find its way onto a sixth gen aircraft,” he said. In designing the next fighter, life cycle costs will be crucial, and so practical considerations will have to be accommodated.

    Toward that end, he said, Lockheed Martin is working on new composite manufacturing techniques that use far fewer fasteners, less costly tooling, and therefore lower start-up and sustainment costs. It demonstrated those technologies recently on the Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft program.

    Given the anticipated capabilities of the Russian and Chinese fifth generation fighters, when will a sixth generation aircraft have to be available?

    Davis said the Air Force and Navy, not industry, will have to decide how soon they need a new generation of fighters. However, “if the services are thinking they need something in 2020” when foreign fifth generation fighters could be proliferating in large numbers, “we’re going to have to do some things to our existing generation of platforms,” such as add the directed energy weapons or other enhancements.

    Kacena agreed, saying that Lockheed Martin has “engaged with both services and supplied them data and our perspectives” about the next round of fighter development. If the need exists to make a true quantum leap, then sixth generation is the way to go, but, “if it’s driven by the reduction in force structure [and] ... the equipment is just getting old and worn out in that time frame, then [we] may very well be on a path of continuous improvement of fifth generation capabilities.” Lockheed Martin makes both the F-22 and F-35.

    He said the company’s goal is to find the knee in the curve where “you get them the most bang for the buck without an 80 to 90 percent solution. Something that doesn’t take them beyond the nonlinear increase in cost.”

    Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance and a fighter pilot, said the next fighter generation may well have characteristics fundamentally different from any seen today, but he urged defense decision-makers to keep an open mind and not ignore hard-learned lessons from history.

    Although great strides have been made in unmanned aircraft, said Deptula, “we have a long way to go to achieve the degree of 360-degree spherical situation awareness, rapid assimilation of information, and translation of that information into action that the human brain, linked with its on-site sensors, can accomplish.”

    Numbers Count, Too

    Despite rapid increases in computer processing power, it will be difficult for a machine to cope with “an infinite number of potential situations that are occurring in split seconds,” Deptula added, noting that, until such a capability is proved, “we will still require manned aircraft.”

    It’s important to note that America’s potential adversaries will have access to nearly all the technologies now only resident with US forces, Deptula said. Thinking 20 to 30 years out, it will be necessary to invest properly to retain things US forces depend on, such as air superiority.

    However, he warned not to put too much emphasis on technology, per se. “Just as precision air weapons and, to a certain degree, cyberspace are redefining our definition of mass in today’s fight, we have to be very wary of how quickly ‘mass’ in its classic sense can return in an era of mass-precision and mass-cyber capabilities for all.”

    In other words, numbers count, and too few fighters, even if they are extremely advanced, are still too few.

    Hanging over the sixth generation fighter debate is this stark fact: The relevant program should now be well under way, but it has not even been defined. If the Pentagon wants a sixth generation capability, it will have to demonstrate that intent, and soon. Industry needs that clear signal if it is to invest its own money in developing the technologies needed to make the sixth generation fighter come about.

    Moreover, the sixth generation program is necessary to keep the US aerospace industry on the cutting edge. Unless it is challenged, if the “90 percent” solution is needed in the future, industry may not be able to answer the call.

    Under Gates, Pentagon technology leaders have said they want to avoid cost and schedule problems by deferring development until technologies are more mature. Unfortunately, this safe and steady approach does not stimulate leap-ahead technologies.

    Meyer said, “We need to have challenges to our innovative thoughts, our engineering talents, our technology integration and development that would ... push us ... to the point where industry has to perform beyond expectations.”

    He noted that today’s F-35 is predicated on largely proven technologies and “affordability,” but it was the B-2 and F-22 programs that really paved the way for the systems that underpin modern air combat.

    The B-2 bomber, he noted, “was a program of significant discovery,” because it involved a great deal of invention to meet required performance. The B-2 demanded “taking ... basic research and developing it in the early ... phases” of the program, which yielded nonfaceted stealth, enhanced range and payload, nuclear hardening, new antennas, radars, and flight controls.

    Today, Meyer said, most programs are entering full-scale development only when they’ve reached a technology readiness level of six or higher.

    “We probably had elements on the B-2 ... that were at four, and a lot at five,” Meyer said.

    Programs such as the sixth generation fighter “are the ones we relish because they make us think, they make us take risks that we wouldn’t normally take, and in taking on those risks we’ve discovered the new technologies that have made our industry great,” he asserted.

    Davis said that other countries are going to school on the US fighter industry and taking its lessons to heart.

    “We still think you have to build things—fly them and test them—in order to know what works and what doesn’t,” said Davis. “And, at some point, if you don’t do that, just do it theoretically, it doesn’t get you where you need to be.”

    He added, “If we don’t continue to move forward, they will catch us.”

    http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...09fighter.aspx

  2. #2
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    hiding in the bushes near Chengdu
    Posts
    6,098

    Default

    I personally think the US still needs to reopen the F22 program and produce at least 500-1000 more of those fighters while developing a 6th gen fighter

  3. #3
    Senior Member Steak-Sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Liberating Lingor
    Posts
    10,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptMorgan68 View Post
    I personally think the US still needs to reopen the F22 program and produce at least 500-1000 more of those fighters while developing a 6th gen fighter
    Quick question: Are you for real?

  4. #4
    Member ThePlato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Age
    28
    Posts
    200

    Default

    Soon as I read directed energy weapons I imagined...

    [IMG]http://i50.*******.com/axe7mdotjpg[/IMG]


    Seriously though, interesting read on the sixth generation fighter. I honestly do wonder about air superiority given the current enemy we are fighting however.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Orocairion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,374

    Default

    I think this whole generation talk is being used as marketing bulls**t nowadays, when you see the terms being thrown around like that. Sort of like CPU manufacturers try to sell us each generation of products as the best thing since sliced bread

  6. #6
    Inappropriate Uncle ARGAR FORKBEARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Basra, Iraq
    Posts
    1,898

  7. #7
    Senior Member MichaelF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Inside Ngati's OODA Loop...
    Age
    35
    Posts
    4,407

    Default



    Word......

  8. #8
    Milo Drinker of Death Flagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The (South)Island of Misfit Toys
    Posts
    14,754

    Default

    IF there is a way to create a 99.99% reliable/undetectable/unjammable datalink between a UCAV and it's operator(s) I don't see much of a need for manned combat aircraft.

    If synthetic vision is making an appearance in the F35, wouldn't it stand to reason that REMOTE synthetic vision would play a critical role in bridging the gap between manned and unmammned combat aircraft?

    Isn't it possible that a UCAV...remotely operated via an unlimited TEAM of networked operators using synthetic vision and shared sensor feeds has the potential to dominate a battlespace against overlaoded individual opponents using traditional manned combat aircraft?

    IF the UCAV datalink is safe wouldn't it stand to reason that all things being equal the UCAV has an inherent design advantage negating the hefty load required for manned crew life support?

    Wouldn't that give the UCAV greater freedom of maneuver beyond human physiological limits, greater combat persistance, and gerater weapons payload?

    I wonder if doctrinal evolution air combat is much like the evolution of the internet.

    Lots of promise in the early days both unmanned fighters and Pets.com.........for both the internet and the first vision of unmanned air combat........but little in the way of actual execution

    Fast forward to internet 2.0 and unmanned air combat 2.0 and things are a good bit different.....those early promises(some decades old) are now being fulfilled.

    Personally, I think that if fat pipe reliable, unjammable, and undetectable datalink can be created it's a no brainer to go almost completely unmanned for "6th generation" tactical aircraft.

    And to be honest....if it's possible to keep costs manageable using off the shelf tech with a bit of bleeding edge stuff maybe air forces will be able to afford more than 1 airframe.

    I'm thinking an unmanned version of the 1970's "hi/Lo" mix.

  9. #9
    Falcons FTW Kilgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Joh Country
    Posts
    14,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flagg View Post
    IF there is a way to create a 99.99% reliable/undetectable/unjammable datalink between a UCAV and it's operator(s) I don't see much of a need for manned combat aircraft.

    If synthetic vision is making an appearance in the F35, wouldn't it stand to reason that REMOTE synthetic vision would play a critical role in bridging the gap between manned and unmammned combat aircraft?

    Isn't it possible that a UCAV...remotely operated via an unlimited TEAM of networked operators using synthetic vision and shared sensor feeds has the potential to dominate a battlespace against overlaoded individual opponents using traditional manned combat aircraft?

    IF the UCAV datalink is safe wouldn't it stand to reason that all things being equal the UCAV has an inherent design advantage negating the hefty load required for manned crew life support?

    Wouldn't that give the UCAV greater freedom of maneuver beyond human physiological limits, greater combat persistance, and gerater weapons payload?

    I wonder if doctrinal evolution air combat is much like the evolution of the internet.

    Lots of promise in the early days both unmanned fighters and Pets.com.........for both the internet and the first vision of unmanned air combat........but little in the way of actual execution

    Fast forward to internet 2.0 and unmanned air combat 2.0 and things are a good bit different.....those early promises(some decades old) are now being fulfilled.

    Personally, I think that if fat pipe reliable, unjammable, and undetectable datalink can be created it's a no brainer to go almost completely unmanned for "6th generation" tactical aircraft.

    And to be honest....if it's possible to keep costs manageable using off the shelf tech with a bit of bleeding edge stuff maybe air forces will be able to afford more than 1 airframe.

    I'm thinking an unmanned version of the 1970's "hi/Lo" mix.
    Good points.

    The current limitation in fighter aircraft is the pilot themselves.

  10. #10
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Here, but not all there
    Posts
    21,121

    Arrow

    There is a lot of rumors about active stealth coming in the next generation of fighters. And instead of pure unmanned drones, it is possible that a single manned aircraft could act as a controller for a flight of semi-autonomous drones.

  11. #11
    Member Sixxes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Reading the Fabric of the Cosmos...
    Posts
    78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ARGAR FORKBEARD View Post
    Not a bad option. Pity about the timing though cos it sure would be better than those 24 superhornets that Aus is buying....

  12. #12
    Senior Member JJC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,215

    Default

    We don't have the F35 yet, no money for large fleet of F22 and they are already hungry for a 6th generation solution that by the time it comes out with bloated coasts, the AF will announce that the Russians and Chinese will match that technology very soon, so then they will announce a program for a 7th generation fighter.

  13. #13
    Sapporo Snow Bunny budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Finally There
    Age
    41
    Posts
    6,550

    Default

    I don't see why the USAF can't plug the gap with 4.5s, if it will save money to boost the numbers. Newer F-16s and F-18s will be more than effective in low intensity conflicts such as Afghanistan, while the Raptors and Lightnings maintain strategic dominance.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Zoomie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    The Last Frontier
    Posts
    5,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orocairion View Post
    I think this whole generation talk is being used as marketing bulls**t nowadays, when you see the terms being thrown around like that. Sort of like CPU manufacturers try to sell us each generation of products as the best thing since sliced bread
    It's not, as if you were to actually sit down and look at what the generations are considered to be, then it perfectly makes sense.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Derbedeu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelF View Post


    Word......
    What is that?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •