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

[A Bar Brother]

Max suspected speed for the PAK fa is probably about mach 2.5 with a 65,000 ft service sealing. for the higher speed and altitude the Russians are supposed to be working on a stealthy Mig 31 interceptor replacement. the Russians are still lacking on the DEW which the US is really looking for.

PAKFA is being designed with ejection seats and pressure suits that are good up to 23 Km or 75000 feet.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to the Deputy Chief Designer of NPP Zvezda, Nikolay Dergunov, the pilots will be offered 2 suits: PPK-7 anti-G suit and partial pressure suit VKK-17. The suit is chosen in accordance with the flying altitude — PPK-7 is suitable for altitudes up to 12 km, VKK-17 — up to 23 km.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

PAKFA is being designed with ejection seats and pressure suits that are good up to 23 Km or 75000 feet.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

service sealing is not max altitude even Mig 31 has a service sealing of 20,600 m or 67000 feet. what it means is that that is the max altitude the aircraft can be at and still operate in it's normal envelope.
when you push beyond that issues of performance regarding drag and lift start to appear meaning your stall speed starts increasing. the higher the altitude the higher the stall speed the faster the speed you need to maintain in order to maintain flight.
At absolute ceiling you hit "coffin corner" Where the stall speed and max speed is the about the same. In other words. a fighter can be at a higher altitude then service ceiling, including 75000 feet but in doing so her drag rate is much higher so the pilot has to tax the engines to milk more speed, and if Pak Fa's coffin corner is 75000 feet that means at that altitude in order to operate the pilot has to be at full afterburner at max speed because if she is so much as a single Knot slower she is going to stall and fall from the sky like a rock.
U2's are cool in this way as there operational altitude is coffin corner.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

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.

Here's the thing Bumby. the Only Nation on earth that can knock the US from being a super power is the US. and it's a matter of Attitude if the US quits and rests on it's laurels it might as well pack up and go home.
If that is the case then the only way to keep that dominance is to keep ahead. In the Cold war that was easy. there were only two real cutting edge suppliers the US and it's Allies picked and chose who they sold to, and only released enough super cutting edge to keep there allies well supported well the russians picked and chose who they sold there cutting edge stuff to and passed off there junk to everyone else.
Today that's no longer the case. Don't invade your neighbors or I'll hit you with cruise missiles is no longer relevant if the party your trying to keep inline is capable of striking back. What we see today is something we have not seen since the days of World war 2 when even the smallest militaries stood as equals in fire power. the number of fighter makers, tank builders and naval ship builders is expanding rapidly. and some of the nations and companies are the make the deal now and maybe ask questions later types. given that a lot of these are modern to super modern rather then junk with a new paint job. In order to keep ahead the leading nations need to push the hyper modern, and that is not just for the US but any nation who has ambitions to be a Global or regional power broker and any nation that feels it needs to at least keep equilibrium against a Global or regional power.
In other words. Sixth Generation is aimed to be driven by its mission sets based on future and perceived threats it need to operate in. because the World is Changing and Insurgencies are not the only threats. because sometimes the better mouse trap is just what you need.

 

[Air Force Brat]

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.

There is little doubt that the Raptor will "turn on a dime" and is very taxing to the Pilot. It is a lot of work to operate this aircraft at or near its limits, and one of the reasons I favor a further development of the fifth gen, as I am rather certain fifth gen standards have not been fully met by most of the aircraft that are reaching for fifth gen. In my own very honest assessment, only the Raptor has fully encompassed the full aspect of fifth gen technology, and the Raptor airframe would benefit greatly from a little "tweaking" to bring it into the new century, already mentioned were the helmet mounted gun-sight, as well as further "sensor fusion".. so having said all of that, I believe the pilot remains the essential element of a true fifth gen platform, as the fail-safe against "rogue" technology, as Jeff suggested the UAV does offer the fifth gen pilot/operator a wealth of "options".

To believe that sixth gen will "materialize" out of vapor is also just not the way things happen, most technological break-through, is by extension from past technology. The F-22 is very definetly an extension of the form of the F-86, F-100, etc, etc,, to plot or predict that a pilot is no longer needed in the cock-pit, is to assume that AI or ground based piloting is equal to or superior to that fine gentleman in the cockpit- it simply is not so, and I rather doubt that in the future it will be so????

 

[Air Force Brat]

“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.

I believe the Navy has a cultural bias against the manned aircraft, likely shared by the Army, hence the love affair with the UAV/UCAV. It often comes out in the "policy wonk" talks and future projection??? However, it is my firm belief that only manned aircraft will assure our continued superiority in "air power" and that "air power" is a key element in maintaining our place in the world as we know it.. Everyone else, the Chinese/Russians etc continue to develop and build "manned aircraft" to project and defend power????

 

[Miragedriver]

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 .

Just going off topic for a second: I tend to agree with you Thunder, that there is always that one ups man ship in all things. The military is a perfect example:

Take fortifications: Early Roman military camp or fortifications lead to and hill forts were the main antecedents of castles in Europe. Early Middle Ages saw the creation of some towns built around castles. Medieval-style fortifications were largely made obsolete by the arrival of cannons on the 14th century. Fortifications in the age of black powder evolved into much lower structures with greater use of ditches and earth ramparts that would absorb and disperse the energy of cannon fire. Walls exposed to direct cannon fire were very vulnerable, so were sunk into ditches fronted by earth slopes.

The arrival of explosive shells in the 19th century led to yet another stage in the evolution of fortification. Star forts did not fare well against the effects of high explosive and the intricate arrangements of bastions, and the carefully constructed lines of fire for the defending cannon could be rapidly disrupted by explosive shells. Steel-and-concrete fortifications were common during the 19th and early 20th centuries. However the advances in modern warfare since World War I have made large-scale fortifications obsolete in most situations.

Pant…pant.. ok, I’m tired to typing, but you get the picture.

One last thing though, the glass is always full my friend, half with water and half with air…


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec, always full

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

And the Tank Rendered Trench lines imputent. well the Automobile rendered the Horse a Anachronism. War is not something that stays the same. It's a evolutionary thing. particularly since the 1850's where each generation and each conflict has brought about new and truly revolutionary concepts and technologies.

 

[Jura The idiot]

... It's a evolutionary thing. particularly since the 1850's where each generation and each conflict has brought about new and truly revolutionary concepts and technologies.

let me add one off-topic post, too I'd go back to the Napoleonic Wars, as the graduates of Theresianische Akademie complained about Bonaparte not using what they had been taught ...

 

[Air Force Brat]

service sealing is not max altitude even Mig 31 has a service sealing of 20,600 m or 67000 feet. what it means is that that is the max altitude the aircraft can be at and still operate in it's normal envelope.
when you push beyond that issues of performance regarding drag and lift start to appear meaning your stall speed starts increasing. the higher the altitude the higher the stall speed the faster the speed you need to maintain in order to maintain flight.
At absolute ceiling you hit "coffin corner" Where the stall speed and max speed is the about the same. In other words. a fighter can be at a higher altitude then service ceiling, including 75000 feet but in doing so her drag rate is much higher so the pilot has to tax the engines to milk more speed, and if Pak Fa's coffin corner is 75000 feet that means at that altitude in order to operate the pilot has to be at full afterburner at max speed because if she is so much as a single Knot slower she is going to stall and fall from the sky like a rock.
U2's are cool in this way as there operational altitude is coffin corner.

an astounding understanding from a lad that's not a pilot?? yes it ain't no fun being hi and loose?

 

[Brumby]

I believe the Navy has a cultural bias against the manned aircraft, likely shared by the Army, hence the love affair with the UAV/UCAV. It often comes out in the "policy wonk" talks and future projection??? However, it is my firm belief that only manned aircraft will assure our continued superiority in "air power" and that "air power" is a key element in maintaining our place in the world as we know it.. Everyone else, the Chinese/Russians etc continue to develop and build "manned aircraft" to project and defend power????

I completely agree that each service will gravitate to their favourite toys because of vested interest and comfort zone. History will repeat until we see a dislocation. Manning will continue to outperform unmanned aerial in air power in the foreseeable future. However I also see a serious debate and tension on the horizon between the school of sustaining technology (manned) and the school of disruptive technology (unmanned). There will be three drivers in this tension :
(i) Vision of leadership
(ii) Cost and affordability because the next gen. fighter will cost at least $500 million/piece
(iii)Pace of technological development in computing and AI

The next ten years will resolve this.