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

Brumby

Major
Although I


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.

Conceptually and descriptively I can subscribe to the notion of a "no man's land" as you have pointed out. Having said that there are add ons that I would like to make relating to this idea. Firstly, a vacuum state is not a state of equilibrium and will be filled. We see the physical developments in the SCS with the island projects. There is a forum rule concerning our discussion and so I would try to dance around it. Essentially we are not looking at an empty room but one with an elephant in it except everyone is pretending is not there. I see the A2AD zone as a living organism which will expand and populate over time to serve a purpose. More immediate is that the sensor nodes are increasingly pushing the zone envelope further out. I see the island reclaimation projects as an opportunity to expand the sensor node coverage. Given the right strategic placement of the appropriate sensors will enable trianagulation of the CSG. This will address a key weakness currently with the lack of long range tracking and target acquisition tracks for use by ABSM. I see the 6G spectrum domination capability as part of the offset initiative to deal with this type of problem. .
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
One of the things I was trying to point out gents is A2AD is not necessarily limited to the PRC. The technology at its heart AntiShip ballistic missiles is one that was developed by Russia until SALT. The Iranian government has claimed to have similar vehicles for attack on carriers, and given the ties between Pyongyang, Beijing, Moscow and Tehran its only a matter of time before North Korea rolls a DF21D knock off down the main boulevard of Pyongyang with a sticker on the side naming it the "Kim Jong Un Carrier Killer".
The systems will proliferate and any navy with carriers will have to find something to keep there carriers from becoming the next royal yacht.
Advent engines extending the range of fighters like the F35 particularly the F35B and F35C the carrier models as well as possible future upgrades or replacement fighters in the future with extended ranges can take a chunk out of that issue. Even if its moving forward the F35s combat range from 600nm to 750 that's still a lot more stand off.
 

Brumby

Major
One of the things I was trying to point out gents is A2AD is not necessarily limited to the PRC. The technology at its heart AntiShip ballistic missiles is one that was developed by Russia until SALT. The Iranian government has claimed to have similar vehicles for attack on carriers, and given the ties between Pyongyang, Beijing, Moscow and Tehran its only a matter of time before North Korea rolls a DF21D knock off down the main boulevard of Pyongyang with a sticker on the side naming it the "Kim Jong Un Carrier Killer".
The systems will proliferate and any navy with carriers will have to find something to keep there carriers from becoming the next royal yacht.

The intend is not to specifically picked out a country in discussing A2AD. However because of the uniqueness of the size of the potential zone; the extended stand off ranges of ABSM and ASM in play; and the maritime survellience system required to make it effective it naturally becomes the defacto example for discussion.

Whilst I acknowledge the validity of a threat from a DF21D knock off, I do question the credibility of such a threat because its potency is correlated to the supporting sensor network available to provide targetting solution. In other words, you can't strike what you can't see. This has always been the issue even during the cold war where the Soviets had the RORSAT to target the CSG. The issue invariably with A2AD defaults to maintenance of the sensor network for situational awareness and consequently the issue of spectrum dominance when there is a contest over the zone. .
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
This thread is NOT about hypersonic missiles. it is specifically about the 6th generation US fighter development program.

STAY ON TOPIC

Do not interject off topic conversations into it. Do not reply to such off topic comments. If someone will not reply to your off topic comment...DO NOT continue the off topic conversation anyway., no matter how relevant you think it. Such behavior will generate warnings, and then suspensions.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION
 
Last edited:

Bernard

Junior Member
ACC Chief: Stealth ‘Incredibly Important’ For Next USAF Fighter
Feb 12, 2015
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
| Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

f-22-usaf.jpg

F-22: USAF
Advertisement

ORLANDO, Florida – Air Combat Command chief Gen. Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle says stealth will be "incredibly important" for the F-X aircraft that the U.S. Air Force is pursuing as an eventual
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
replacement.
The Air Force is intending to follow a methodical path of risk reduction, Carlisle said. He suggested this harkened back to earlier days in developing aircraft decades ago. With the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and F-22, new technologies were required during development, driving up cost and delaying introduction into service.
Carlisle said the Air Force intends to include as much prototyping, technology demonstration and systems engineering work as possible leading up to a program of record. He spoke with reporters at a Feb. 12 roundtable at the Air Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium here.
The service is returning to what Carlisle describes as its roots as it plots a path ahead to a sixth-generation strike capability. He and other Air Force leaders emphasize that the 6th-generation system is not just an aircraft. They describe a sweeping review of a system of systems to include a comprehensive look at communications, capabilities from space, standoff and stand in options under the umbrella of Air Superiority 2030.
The Air Force does "not want to jump straight to the idea of a sixth-generation fighter," said Lt. Gen. James Holmes, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements.
As the Air Force pursues F-X, the Navy is examining its needs for an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
/F replacement in the F/A-XX. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert has said that the F/A-XX needn’t be so focused on survivability as to sacrifice speed and payload.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
ACC Chief: Stealth ‘Incredibly Important’ For Next USAF Fighter
Feb 12, 2015
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
| Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

f-22-usaf.jpg

F-22: USAF
Advertisement

ORLANDO, Florida – Air Combat Command chief Gen. Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle says stealth will be "incredibly important" for the F-X aircraft that the U.S. Air Force is pursuing as an eventual
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
replacement.
The Air Force is intending to follow a methodical path of risk reduction, Carlisle said. He suggested this harkened back to earlier days in developing aircraft decades ago. With the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and F-22, new technologies were required during development, driving up cost and delaying introduction into service.
Carlisle said the Air Force intends to include as much prototyping, technology demonstration and systems engineering work as possible leading up to a program of record. He spoke with reporters at a Feb. 12 roundtable at the Air Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium here.
The service is returning to what Carlisle describes as its roots as it plots a path ahead to a sixth-generation strike capability. He and other Air Force leaders emphasize that the 6th-generation system is not just an aircraft. They describe a sweeping review of a system of systems to include a comprehensive look at communications, capabilities from space, standoff and stand in options under the umbrella of Air Superiority 2030.
The Air Force does "not want to jump straight to the idea of a sixth-generation fighter," said Lt. Gen. James Holmes, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements.
As the Air Force pursues F-X, the Navy is examining its needs for an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
/F replacement in the F/A-XX. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert has said that the F/A-XX needn’t be so focused on survivability as to sacrifice speed and payload.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Reassuring", that General Carlisle seems to be pursuing an extension of fifth gen stealth and not abandonment of the principles that have brought us to the extremely high level of performance of the F-22 and its progeny, the J-20, T-50, etc. His demand for stealth and survivability lead me to believe he is pursuing a manned platform, the Navy Chief's willingness to sacrifice stealth for more speed and payload suggest a polar opposite and that their interest is in an unmanned platform???
Perhaps with the Air Force's vision and extension toward a very stealthy sixth gen platform, we will see many of the design features that have been lamented with the passing of the YF-23 program??
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
In a way the YF-23 was maybe too ahead for its time then but maybe it is its turn to be the bride.

It would not surprise me in the least to see the YF-23 reincarnated in part, as that aircraft remains a very stealthy, very advanced, and well ahead of its time, Their are many who "erroneously" believe that the USAF choose the wrong aircraft??? a view that I sympathize with, but do not hold. I do believe that the sixth gen will ultimately be an "extension" of the fifth generation aircraft, and I believe from General Carlisle's comments that he sees that as the "pathway" into the next generation of fighter aircraft.
I personally believe that the fifth gen capabilities are only about 60% "fleshed out", and that the development of that final 40% will put us in range to pick up the sixth generation platform, much of that development is occurring even as we speak, as the J-20, T-50, F-35, and FC-31 continue to be developed, test-flown and put into full scale production.
 

Brumby

Major
It would not surprise me in the least to see the YF-23 reincarnated in part, as that aircraft remains a very stealthy, very advanced, and well ahead of its time, Their are many who "erroneously" believe that the USAF choose the wrong aircraft??? a view that I sympathize with, but do not hold. I do believe that the sixth gen will ultimately be an "extension" of the fifth generation aircraft, and I believe from General Carlisle's comments that he sees that as the "pathway" into the next generation of fighter aircraft.
I personally believe that the fifth gen capabilities are only about 60% "fleshed out", and that the development of that final 40% will put us in range to pick up the sixth generation platform, much of that development is occurring even as we speak, as the J-20, T-50, F-35, and FC-31 continue to be developed, test-flown and put into full scale production.

I agree totally with your view of adopting an extended development path from 5th to 6th rather rather than any major leap in technology application which invariable ends are with a bloated, expensive and over extended timeline and program. The type you end up with where you can only afford a dozen because it cost a billion dollars each.

The 2035 time window also means that the F-22 would be around 40 years old by then and may be is at the edge of the airframe useful life.
 

Brumby

Major
A blog article on the 6th gen program. A good writeup and summary.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
America's 6th Generation Fighters: F-X & F/A-XX - I (Part 1 of 4)[/URL]
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Lockheed-sixth-gen.jpg

American Innovation said:
The Need for a Sixth Generation Fighter:

Four factors have guided the decision to begin work on the F/A-XX and F-X programs: increasingly sophisticated anti-access threats, the potential compromise of key F-35 program details to China, the age and finite quantity of existing air superiority/air dominance platforms in conjunction with the proliferation of foreign fifth generation aircraft, and industrial base concerns,

In 2001, Lockheed Martin's X-35 was selected to be developed into the F-35. As of 2015, the planned initial operational capability (IOC) dates for the F-35 are 2015 for the Marines, 2016 for the Air Force, and 2018 for the Navy. The significant delay in the development of the F-35 program has enabled US competitors, chiefly China and Russia, to start to develop technologies that would limit the effectiveness of the F-35's low observability. The proliferation of very high frequency (VHF) radars is a cause for concern, the F-35's air frame is optimized to perform against X and S band radars. As per the Raleigh scattering region, electromagnetic radiation will scatter from bodies smaller than its wavelength (Plopsky & Bozzato, 2014). However, VHF radars are not a panacea type solution to countering stealth aircraft.


RCS-Regions-1.png

Historically, VHF radars have been of limited use as the resolution cells are too large too provide a target quality track for weapons systems unlike the X and S bands (Majumdar, 2014). China and Russia have recently applied advances in processing power to improve the quality of their VHF systems. For example, the Type 052D Luyang III destroyer features a Type 518 L-band radar paired with a conventional Type 346 AESA radar which could provide it with nascent anti-stealth capability against aircraft like the F-22A and F-35. At the present level of technological maturity, VHF systems would likely provide an early warning capability against stealth aircraft and could eventually cue X and S band systems to provide targeting information. However, the weapon employment range of a VHF radar cued with a X and S band system may not be tactically significant. In the future, a system of VHF radars could be networked via a high speed datalink, the resolution cell could be refined enough for a weapon quality track (Majumdar, 2014). But the US has made preparations to keep the F-35 relevant in highly contested VHF anti-access area denial (A2/AD) environments into the 2030s and beyond.

Another factor that has led to the development of a sixth generation fighter stems from China's cyber espionage activities. Edward Snowden recently released documents confirming China's role in stealing F-35 program information including the AN/APG-81 design, engine schematics, infrared signature reduction methods, etc. (Gady, 2015). These technical details have not only helped China build its own stealth aircraft, but also the information could be used to potentially facilitate the creation of countermeasures against the F-35. Lockheed Martin insists China has not managed to obtain the "crown jewels." Despite Lockheed Martin's assurances, the data breach is generally regarded as a significant setback for the F-35 program. Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Jonathan Greenert recently remarked, "The losing of proprietary data on high technology from cleared defense contractors — it’s just driving me crazy."

"Senior officials are in the preliminary stages of examining options should stealth—one of the F-35’s key attributes—be compromised by new technology. The idea is to be able to hand off to the next presidential administration both a healthy F-35 program, and other options should the next president find the aircraft’s technology outdated. The hope is the F-35’s technology will be viable for decades to come." - Amy Butler, 2015

The emergence of a new threat during the development of a fighter program is not new. The development of the sixth generation F-X while the fifth generation F-35 has yet to enter service is not dissimilar from how the Advance Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, which eventually led to the fifth generation F-22, was undertaken while the fourth generation F-X program - which led to the F-15A, had only just concluded. US reconnaissance satellites captured images of the T10-1 prototype, the Soviet's fourth generation response to the F-15 which resulted in the Su-27, in 1977 (Goebel, 2014). The Soviets had responded more quickly than anticipated and it was apparent that a new fighter was needed to maintain the US' technological advantage prompting the the ATF in 1981.


ATF.jpg

The consolidation of the US aerospace and defense industry after the Cold War has only been exacerbated in recent years due. Instead of a diverse set of multiple smaller procurement programs, there are only four major combat aircraft procurement programs over the next decade (UCLASS, T-X, LRS-B, and some F/A-XX and F-X work). Thus, if a major defense contractor fails to secure one of these programs it will be unable to sustain its aircraft manufacturing capability. Part of the justification for accelerating the F-X and F/A-XX programs is to provide work for the defense industrial base such that further consolidation can be avoided (Sweetman, Asker, Norris, & Butler, 2015).

The last major reason for starting development of a sixth generation fighter, at least from the Air Force's perspective, is the limited number of high end air superiority platforms currently in service. F-22 production was prematurely terminated with 195 aircraft produced of which only 186 are in the Air Force's current inventory. Of these 186 aircraft,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
at any one time with the remainder of the aircraft serving in either in an attrition reserve, training, or test and evaluation role. The F-15C/D fleet will now receive
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to keep the Eagle fleet operational until at least the late 2020s. While the F-35 will provide robust air to air capabilities, it is not an air dominance fighter like the F-22. The US will require new sixth generation air superiority aircraft in the 2030s to retain the current disparity in projected kill ratios for US fighters.

A new sixth generation air superiority fighter is needed in the 2030s to hedge against a decline in expected US exchange ratios against increasingly advanced Russian and Chinese aircraft.

Similarly, while the F-35 is capable as a strike fighter in terms of air-to-air capabilities it is not a purpose built air dominance platform like the F-22. In an Australian Parliamentary hearing within the Foreign Affairs, Defense And Trade Joint Committee, Garry Liberson who is the Technical Lead of Operations Analysis and Strategic Studies at Lockheed Martin indicated the F-35 would have a six to one exchange ratio against "advanced red threats" in the 2015 to 2020 time frame (Source 69, page 5).The red threats described by Mr. Liberson are likely to be either upgraded Su-30s or Su-35s. Thus the author would surmise the F-35 would perform less favorably against the J-20 and Pak Fa when compared to the F-22 as discussed above.

The A2/AD Strategic Environment of 2030:


PRC A2.jpg

It is important to emphasize the context in which American sixth generation aircraft will operate in conjunction with other American and allied aircraft rather than merely analyzing various tactical air to air combat scenarios between individual adversary and US platforms. The sixth generation development programs take place within the broader context of the third offset strategy and new concepts like distributed lethality all of which are geared towards mitigating advancements made by Russia and China to limit US power projection operations.

To provide a brief overview, China began to develop systems to inhibit US power projection after the overwhelming victory of the United States in the Persian Gulf War:

"...the consensus that U.S. forces were unbeatable in a conventional force-on-force conflict became the dominant global lesson learned. As the previous study notes [Conduct of the Persian Gulf War], 'while the Vietnam syndrome might always have been exaggerated and misinterpreted, the display of U.S. power in the Persian Gulf had the effect of creating an image of overwhelming power'. For nations, non-state actors, and other entities opposed to U.S. influence and contemplating violent means toward achieving their international political aims, conventional warfare seemed almost a closed option." - Tangredi, pg.29, 2013

Read more here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(Note: Brumby this is a good report, so I thought I would place more of it on the thread here)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top