US F/A-XX and F-X 6th Gen Aircraft News Thread

[TerraN_EmpirE]

moving on but using the same list. the Air force's Next Generation Tactical Aircraft program aims differently but will likely share a lot.
1. Spectrum dominance
not as much needed but in the modern era all fighters are multirole. Attacking targets on the ground and in the Air is likely to remain a need. but primarily the NGTA will be a Fighter.

2. Advance propulsion
again range. the F22A has a combat range of 400NMs with Base reductions, Expeditionary missions may force the USAF to extend it's ranges and push for higher supercruise velocities

3. Autonomous sensor and payload integration
also a need but the Air force would have more flexibility in weight and stealth options this will likely include all aspect stealth and advanced counter detection technologies.
The Air Force program and the Navy Program competitors that have thus far stepped up are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman. Thus far we have seen two official Concepts Lookheed's

and Boeings.

There is also this graphic from Northrup Grumman nearly a decade old
.
All three As they stand show designs that have a very compact physical cross section with either a Flattened or nonexistent Tail and low profile. Therefore a naturally stealthy shape.

 

[Brumby]

moving on but using the same list. the Air force's Next Generation Tactical Aircraft program aims differently but will likely share a lot.
1. Spectrum dominance
not as much needed but in the modern era all fighters are multirole. Attacking targets on the ground and in the Air is likely to remain a need. but primarily the NGTA will be a Fighter.

2. Advance propulsion
again range. the F22A has a combat range of 400NMs with Base reductions, Expeditionary missions may force the USAF to extend it's ranges and push for higher supercruise velocities

3. Autonomous sensor and payload integration
also a need but the Air force would have more flexibility in weight and stealth options this will likely include all aspect stealth and advanced counter detection technologies.
The Air Force program and the Navy Program competitors that have thus far stepped up are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman. Thus far we have seen two official Concepts Lookheed's
View attachment 11500
and Boeings.
View attachment 11501
There is also this graphic from Northrup Grumman nearly a decade old
.View attachment 11499
All three As they stand show designs that have a very compact physical cross section with either a Flattened or nonexistent Tail and low profile. Therefore a naturally stealthy shape.

If I overlay the CNO's comments about stealth and speed, there are a couple of takewaways for me from that statement :
(i) speed and stealth has reached a optimal level and any additional effort is probably diminishing returns. (Augustine's Law Number XV : The last `10 percent of performance generates one -third of the cost and two-thirds of the probelms)
(ii)The 6G platform is more than just about kinematics and aerodynamics but probably broader including electronics, nodes and automation in the future battlespace.

I think it is a matter of emphasis but can carry a very significant skew on the architecture on development. Rightly or wrongly our fixation is on the shape and design but I think the type of platform carries equal if not a more important weight.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

In this case B, it's not so much shape as elimination. look at a F22 if it's coming at you the biggest surface is the nose and intakes look at it from the side and it's the Tail ( vertical stabilizer) and Cockpit. these concepts are eliminating the Vertical Stabilizer making a near flying wing by eliminating the vertical surface of the tail they are reducing not the shaping but the mass that can be seen form the profile. unlike Raptor which has a tail surface equal to maybe a 6th of the over all vertical surface area or Lighting with maybe a little less that try and bounce away enemy radar these let it pass right by as there is nothing to see.

 

[Brumby]

Ok, maybe I'm misreading the "full spectrum" part (still not really covinced, though )

Advances / development of new concepts to fight in the electromagnetic spectrum are, however, already existant in the 5th gen iteration, IMO. And I believe that is one of the things that is yet to be fully understood. What does all that stuff in the 5th gens really bring / mean?

With multiple sensors, primariy X-band AESA and IRST / EOTS so far, a (real-time) multi-spectral multi-angle (cross-platform) sensor fusion might allow for even quicker threat detection and classification and allocating the right "weapon" to achieve the desired effect. Putting passive surveillance equipment on every jet (to include direction finding capable equipment in the longer bands) will allow to gather an enormous amount of data, that will need to be interpreted. It will also create airborne, multi-static active sensors. It may also allow to target specific objects with EW meassures, instead of an area.

That being said, all that new EM noise, the additional comms and active EW means, will of course give away info to the opponent.

IMO, that either means closing down the enemy recievers with massive amounts of EM noise, or find smart ways to communicate. E.g. directional antennas on every asset, that only radiate into the direction of an intendet recipient.

When it comes to the details you probably have a better handle on it than me. Some of the blanks will need time to populate them and so in the interim is merely taking some wild stabs.

I would like to add something from a recent RAND document I read concerning Airpower in the Third Offset strategy that might present possibly an insight on a primary strategy concerning a 2020 battlespace and how sprectrum dominance actually fits into that strategic framework. The central theme in a A2AD environment is the concept of Common Operating Picture (COP) and the aim is to maintain yours while degrading that of your enemy. Essentially it is about shifting the underlying centre of gravity out of your adversary. An A2AD is simply a zone where your adversary intends to operate unhindered while denying your capability to do likewise and central to this is situational awareness which are highly dependent on sensors, nodes, and communications. Spectrum dominance is merely disrupting your adversary's ability to gain sitiuational awareness by degrading the necessary components. Without situational awareness, your adversary's ability to attack your forward basing is degraded together with their air defences. A 6G asset with the ability to achieve spectrum dominance is key to any A2AD conflict.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Electromagnetic spectrum domination is likely to be a critical asset for gen six beyond just conventional radar and IR tracking. were talking beyond smart bombs to Brilliant weapons systems. for both the navy and Air force.

 

[A Bar Brother]

I can easily rebutt your narrative bit I will not because your post is off topic, false equivocation and will likely end up in a series of nonsensical conversation just to have a last say regardless of whether it is relevant or not. Can we please stay on topic.

It is actually very relevant to the topic. What I pointed out is what the navy is looking for and they have already said it before the CNO. And the USAF and IAF, and maybe other air forces, are already implementing this in a large scale.

The USAF has one missile called the JASSM-ER with a range of 1000+ Km. The IAF has planned two missiles, one is the air launched Nirbhay, which is basically a Tomahawk, with a range of 1500 Km and a supersonic LACM with a range of 1000 Km. I'm sure other air forces around the world are planning the same.

So it is obvious that once hypersonic missiles have advanced enough, many countries would be using such missiles.

Just because AFB or you believe some technologies that the Soviet Union had already introduced in the '80s cannot be emulated by the US in the 2020s doesn't mean it is not possible. And just because AFB or you don't share the CNO's opinions doesn't mean the CNO is talking out of his plumbing system.

 

[Brumby]

It is actually very relevant to the topic. What I pointed out is what the navy is looking for and they have already said it before the CNO. And the USAF and IAF, and maybe other air forces, are already implementing this in a large scale.

The USAF has one missile called the JASSM-ER with a range of 1000+ Km. The IAF has planned two missiles, one is the air launched Nirbhay, which is basically a Tomahawk, with a range of 1500 Km and a supersonic LACM with a range of 1000 Km. I'm sure other air forces around the world are planning the same.

So it is obvious that once hypersonic missiles have advanced enough, many countries would be using such missiles.

Just because AFB or you believe some technologies that the Soviet Union had already introduced in the '80s cannot be emulated by the US in the 2020s doesn't mean it is not possible. And just because AFB or you don't share the CNO's opinions doesn't mean the CNO is talking out of his plumbing system.

The genesis was TE simply making a point about the prospect of extended range offered potentially by the ADVENT engine. Having more range rather than less is a good thing simply because it provides greater flexibility in mission planning. This was in the context of 6G.

Alternatives offered by other extended range cruise missile is simply off topic from a 6G discussion. It has nothing to do with the CNO statement or what AFB said.

 

[A Bar Brother]

Alternatives offered by other extended range cruise missile is simply off topic from a 6G discussion. It has nothing to do with the CNO statement or what AFB said.

Navy: We want an optionally manned system with long range that can release long range cruise missiles in our 6th gen aircraft.

You: Hey, all of that's off-topic. Let's talk about something else.

Well, to each his own.

 

[Brumby]

Navy: We want an optionally manned system with long range that can release long range cruise missiles in our 6th gen aircraft.

You: Hey, all of that's off-topic. Let's talk about something else.

Well, to each his own.

Your latest reply is precisely what I envisaged will happen. You want to have the last say even in the face of opposing facts. Discussing about optionally manned system is not off topic as it is generally considered a key consideration in 6G development. However this is not what you posted in #117 and which I referred to as off topic. You are conveniently choosing another subject as if that was what was referred as off topic. I am sorry. There is an audit trail of the discussion. Below is what you actually posted :

An aircraft with a 2000 Km radius of action with 500-1000 Km range hypersonic missile could do wonders to beat the ASBMs. This is what the CNO is probably looking for. And this can be done without risking a pilot. The technology for it already exists and already being implemented by a few countries.

The 6G discussion is about future technology. Optionally manned is related. Existing planes with 2000 km range is not. There are plenty of land based strike platforms like B-2, B-1 and B-52's that can carry extended range weapons. So is Virginia class submarines firing off Tomahawk missiles. That is off topic because we are not dicussing alternative delivery mechanisms.

The conversation was about carrier based planes that with adaptive engine that would enhanced their range and provide increased flexibility to missions.

You can make valuable contributions and you have. The problem is that you don't know when to hold and when to fold.

 

[Scratch]

Although I

I would like to add something from a recent RAND document I read concerning Airpower in the Third Offset strategy that might present possibly an insight on a primary strategy concerning a 2020 battlespace and how sprectrum dominance actually fits into that strategic framework. The central theme in a A2AD environment is the concept of Common Operating Picture (COP) and the aim is to maintain yours while degrading that of your enemy. Essentially it is about shifting the underlying centre of gravity out of your adversary. An A2AD is simply a zone where your adversary intends to operate unhindered while denying your capability to do likewise and central to this is situational awareness which are highly dependent on sensors, nodes, and communications. Spectrum dominance is merely disrupting your adversary's ability to gain sitiuational awareness by degrading the necessary components. Without situational awareness, your adversary's ability to attack your forward basing is degraded together with their air defences. A 6G asset with the ability to achieve spectrum dominance is key to any A2AD conflict.

I like that input wich in my mind creates the picture of reestablishing the "fog of war" on the enemy by hindering him to share what forward sensors may see through the application of spectrum dominance.

However, I'm not sure if this relates specifily to operating in an A2AD environment, and in that context I take issue with the part I bolded in your statement.
This may be besides the point here, or maybe I get it wrong. But A2AD, in my mind, does not create an area of (unrestricted) freedom of movement. That's, by virtue of the name, not the purpose. It's to deny use of that area to the other side. And that, in my understanding, does not require party A to achieve "FOM" in the area to deny it to B. That area could just as well be a "no man's land".
In the case of China specificly (which is the country primarily associated with A2AD) I see the point for them to secure FOM within the first island chain in a 2020 timeframe to support their strategic goals. That, however, will likely require them to establish an A2AD area well beyond that first island chain to deny (USN) effectors (weapons & EW systems) effective application within the PLAs primary AO.

However, if future assets can (remaining in that specific, purely academical example) take away the ability of PLA sensors to report, or even gain, targeting data in the "no man's land", that would really take away that area as a buffer from the PLA.

Yet, as I see it, this would simply be an extension, or new application, of the concept of network centric warfare and, more specificly, the resulting effect of creating an "information superiority". Only this time around, it's not knowing more on your part, but forcing knowing less on the opponent.


TerraN, for the air force side, I wonder if there can be synergies between the NGTA & LRS-B. I think there can and will be. If the bomber comes out in sufficient numbers, perhaps that can take over a heavier burden on the strike part and allow the NGTA to focus on being a fighter, which I think it will as you state. Contrary to doctrine in the past, I wonder if this could bring back fighters doing escort duties (with longer legs thanks to ADVENT) to (strategic) bombers.
So far, the bombers have relied on simply not being detected by the defending IADS. Even with new advances like active stealth, I wonder if a subsonic LRS-B will remain untouchable for the next decades or not. They might still be good enough to fool long range SAMs, but modern fighters investigating an anomaly on an EW radar might need a fighter escort.
Maybe those fighters could even do some refueling from the actual bombers. Yet, there will be a # need for fighters doing ground attack, an maybe the F-35 can benefit from some ADVENT stuff as well.

For the navy, there have been fighters in the past that have been considerably larger than the F-35C and it worked fine. Although they were in no case heavier that the latter.