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

[wtlh]

I thought I read somewhere way back that the F22 Raptor is already reaching the limit of human endurance, and in fact if not for the pilot, the aircraft by-itself could in theory achieve even higher-G manoeuvres. And therefore, in terms of manoeuvrability, the 6th-gen really has to do away with the pilot and become a drone to exceed that of the 5th-gen.

I am wondering if it was much hype, or is there a grain of truth in it?

If true, that means the 6th-gen piloted aircrafts would concentrate more on sensors, battlefield management and network systems, automation, weapon systems and stealth. The only part that really requires a new airframe is the last part; and may be also that direct energy weapons---if miniaturisation can be done---would require a complete new engine and thus new frame.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

there are someways to counter the strain on the Pilot the standard method has been the G suit but standard G suits are limited. liquid G suits have been introduced in Europe but not the US they offer better G absorption and prevention against black out. the G forces themselves are still tolerable it's when they push into double digits

 

[Brumby]

“There are those that see JSF as the last manned fighter,” Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2009. “I’m one that’s inclined to believe that.”

In the all the discussions about 6th gen plane, the notion is about building a better mouse trap. However, sustaining innovation paradoxically contributes to the decline of manned combat aircraft because it drives cost and complexity skyward. “The last 10% of performance generates one-third of the cost and two-thirds of the problems,” observes Norman Augustine, chairman of Martin Marietta (“Defence Spending,” 2012, p. 22).

We are seeing 2 major trends coming to a tipping point as the scope and specs for a 6th gen. starts to crystallise and that is the issue of cost/affordability and the disruptive technology of unmanned vehicle. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates alluded to the former during a 2009 speech, “The perennial procurement and contracting cycle–going back many decades–of adding layer upon layer of cost and complexity onto fewer and fewer platforms that take longer and longer to build must come to an end.” A year later, Gates revisited the theme during remarks, appropriately enough, at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in 2010: “If nature takes its course, major weapons programs will devolve into pursuing the limits of what technology will bear without regard to cost or what a real world enemy can do – a process that over the past two decades has led to $20 million howitzers, $2 billion bombers, and 3 to 6 billion dollar destroyers. And when costs soar, the number of ships and planes the military can buy drops accordingly. For example, the Navy wanted 32 of the next generation destroyer – the DDG-1000; because of skyrocketing costs, we will build three. The Air Force wanted 132 B-2 bombers; at $2 billion each, we built 20. This is unsustainable.”

The above are extracts taken from an article titled “The Life cycle of manned aircraft” and it is insightful from the standpoint of not missing the forest from the trees.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The strategic consideration of developing a 6th gen. aircraft will be about cost and to what extent disruptive technology prevails against sustaining technology. This will be largely driven by the relative vision of the military leadership and the next few Secretary of Defence.

 

[SinoSoldier]

As if the enemy is keeping up with this thread, here's an interesting read from an almost right-on-time report:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

The PLA is in a better place now to start such the question is what will they do? they know a few of the ideas floating for sixth generation but that doesn't mean they will straight up follow the same road map. so what emerges form the PLA program may be totally different then form the American.

 

[Blitzo]

The PLA is in a better place now to start such the question is what will they do? they know a few of the ideas floating for sixth generation but that doesn't mean they will straight up follow the same road map. so what emerges form the PLA program may be totally different then form the American.

It is worth noting that the article which sinosoldier links is from an unreliable source, however that said I would be surprised if the PLA didn't have its contractors start doing studies into 6th gen. The TW 15 engine development is probably the most visible sign so far.

It will indeed be interesting to see how the different countries approach 6th gen.
The US led the way with both 4th gen and 5th gen (F-15 and F-22 respectively), setting the standard for others to follow. I suspect it will be quite a few years until we get a real "6th generation"

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

It is worth noting that the article which sinosoldier links is from an unreliable source, however that said I would be surprised if the PLA didn't have its contractors start doing studies into 6th gen. The TW 15 engine development is probably the most visible sign so far.

It will indeed be interesting to see how the different countries approach 6th gen.
The US led the way with both 4th gen and 5th gen (F-15 and F-22 respectively), setting the standard for others to follow. I suspect it will be quite a few years until we get a real "6th generation"

If I'm not mistaken, because the PRC and China as a whole jumped in late to the fighter, they would count it as a fifth generation. In either case studies are all that matters at the moment actual physical products will not be till at least the mid 2020s. The USAF and USN will likely lead with this. As the concepts behind it and studies have actually been in the works since X35.

What I am thinking is whether programs lead by China, Russia, Japan, European countries, and the like will focus on different attributes in there idea and diverge creating a sort of generation 6A and generation 6B where although they meet most of the requirements to justify Generation 6 there are some aspects that are so fundamentally different. I mean the US is looking to Variable cycle engines that would extended the range. What if the PLA went with combined Cycle? Or instead of smart skin with camouflage used a warping skin that shifted the shape to optimize performance? Its still so early on this that we can even boarder into what today we think of as science fiction.

 

[Brumby]

What I am thinking is whether programs lead by China, Russia, Japan, European countries, and the like will focus on different attributes in there idea and diverge creating a sort of generation 6A and generation 6B where although they meet most of the requirements to justify Generation 6 there are some aspects that are so fundamentally different. I mean the US is looking to Variable cycle engines that would extended the range. What if the PLA went with combined Cycle? Or instead of smart skin with camouflage used a warping skin that shifted the shape to optimize performance? Its still so early on this that we can even boarder into what today we think of as science fiction.

The way I see it is the 6th gen. plane should be driven by its mission sets based on future and perceived threats it need to operate in. Technology is just an enabler i.e. it is the means and not the end. Moore's law is often quoted that computing power doubles every 18 months. We see the effect of sensors being more effective across a wider spectrum and the ever increasing stand off range and capabilities of such weapons. A contested environment is increasingly difficult for any fighter to operate in and hence development is towards unmanned aerial vehicles because of the range it can achieved and the risk mitigation it provides to pilots. I feel that stealth (through shaping and material) and range extension (engine development) is a loosing proposition against development in computing power both in terms of growth curve and cost effectiveness. The future warfare requires thinking outside the box and not building a better mouse trap. My 2 cents on this.

 

[thunderchief]

Thunder, sometimes you tend to look at things like this like a glass as half empty. And that's fine, nothing wrong with skepticism.

Here's the deal.

The US used a high energy laser to shoot down a rocket/missile. They showed the parts of this they wanted to show. A live fire test which clearly did the number to that particular rocket. You and I have no idea what the parameters were for the coating on that rocket and other specifics........

Don't want to derail this thread , so I going to say just this : glass is always half-empty because other side actively works to undermine you . Sort of like you develop better tank armor, they develop better anti-tank round etc ...

In this case, things are going against laser weapons , because of laws of physics. In order for laser to work, you would first need large source of energy , yet compact enough to be installed on warplane , not mounted on truck Then you need something to pinpoint maneuvering air-to-air missile (or SAM ) from all angles, not just the front . Then you need fair weather , without clouds or fog to diffuse your laser beam. Finally, you would need to put enough heat on target in order to destroy it .

On the other hand, you opponent just needs to avoid, reflect or dissipate your laser beam for few seconds , before his missile hits your airplane . Unlike you, he already has working technologies to achieve just that . While you spend money pursuing wonder weapons that don't work, he is improving existing weapons that do work and cost much less .

That's about it I'm going to say on this topic .

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Here is the thing Thunder. we have 10 years the was developed in 2001 and proven in 2004 on the ground and in air tests by 2010 when it was canceled. that system took the air frame of a 747 in 2009 a smaller system was tested on a ground target in a C130 Airframe. the laser on the ABL was a megawat class laser.
The USN has tested a megawat class laser mounted to the side of a Mk38 mod 2 far smaller then a 747. the technology is getting there. you say that the flash coating will stop it? do you have a report to back that?
no paint job is perfect. all it takes is one nick one scratch and this will cook through. Anti-flash white will only block some of the laser's energy just as it can only block some of the thermal effects of a nuclear weapon. its not a perfect shield. and the point of impact for this is small maybe a quarter sized point. 10 years and here is the real killer of it Thunder well your trying to protect your missiles your making them more expensive per unit. each shot can cost as much as my laser. but my laser beam is unlimited all I need is power.