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

Brumby

Major
Regarding latency: I would stipulate that ground based pilots would still be in-theater and 1 "bounce" away from the aircraft or in direct line of sight (say the pilot is actually a passenger in a high flying communication node). I have heard of classified simulators (TAC Brawler) being able to network dozens of remote simulators across the continental US. This was done in order to actually devise new tactics as well as for training. I would guess latency would be a problem in such a setup as well but realtime communications is an engineering issue which should be manageable as long as there are not too many pass through nodes.

Be mindful that this is a thread on 6th Gen aircraft development and so I will limit my reply to a few pertinent issues.
(I)I think chain nodes will always be subject to the prospects of degradation and outright disruption to its communication channels. One way around it is adopting LPI features like the MALD communication protocol used in F-35's but the downside is its short range effectiveness. The effective range is classified and so we can't even take a stab at it for context. I think they tested up to four nodes last year. Clearly there are technological hurdles.
(ii)Having a chain of nodes to control an unmanned vehicle is a very questionable approach in terms of resource deployment.
(iii)Latency weakness in dogfights I suspect is probably a key weakness and is not something I would discount. Critical pilot reaction time is likely measured in nano seconds.

There was a more intelligent conversation on this topic recently over in Navy Matters. I suggest you check it out.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


As far as current kill probability for combat tested missiles, I would be interested in the breakdown of cause for failure. I would speculate a majority is due to launching outside the acceptance cone or range (too short/too far) of the missile. That is sheer guessing on my part. But the test will be actual combat data accrued from the new generation of high off-boresight dogfighting missiles. Not just the design function but also the ever increasing reliability of the electronics. I recall there was an analysis done way back called Aceval/Aimval. One of the conclusions was that even with Aim-9L type missiles, a fight between an F-15 and a low performance 60's vintage fighter would end up in mutual shoot down. The main thing is, the missiles keep getting better and one day the damn things will work as predicted.

In any event, this is all arm chair conjecture on my part and should be treated as such.

Unfortunately the statistics that matters are real events and there are not too many to draw from. What we know of the new generation missiles are from the manufacturers and from history, they usually don't turn out as advertised.

There is a document prepared by RAND titled "Air Combat Model Engagement and Attrition" which you may find interesting. Just google for it.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Back in the 50's it was thought that missiles had rendered fighters obsolete. With the technology of that time, that turned out to be wildly premature. However, with todays microprocessors and sensors, the idea of dogfighting is looking like a good way to get shot down. I really don't see any airplane (with a human on board) ever outmaneuvering a missile that has a wide field of regard sensor/data-link/image tracking algorithms and vectored thurst.

Just as a wild blue speculation, I would project a future fighter to be extremely stealthy and have a very high power DIRCM to not merely blind a sensor (optical/IR) but actually to destroy it. Eventually, even a radar guided missile might be engaged for a body kill rather than a sensor kill. Stealth to avoid being targetted by radar band missiles, super DIRCM to counter optical band missiles, and a boatload of super smart, stealthy missiles carried internally. For intercept missions, high speed would still be needed but for air superiority, hanging around a long time might be more important..



Strehl, this thread is pretty specifically about the F/A-XX and F-X 6th gen fighter programs. While we do not mind some speculation regarding those specific programs and what they may become, your comment is pretty far OT and has taken the entire thread with it.

If we can document that the two programs intend to include your paragraph speculating what a future fighter may be about...fine.

As to your comment , "In any event, the machines are at the door and will eventually take over."

That is pretty much off topic as neither of these programs is targeted at doing that. So, if your "at the door" means the 7th generation aircraft which are probably 50 or more years from now...fine. But that would still be off topic as far as this thread is concerned.

So, please, let's just get back on topic.

Thanks.
 

vesicles

Colonel
Critical pilot reaction time is likely measured in nano seconds.

Sorry about my nerdiness, but pilot reaction time canNOT be measured in nano seconds. Typical time frame for opening and closing an ion channel is on the order of milliseconds, a million times slower than the "nano-second scale". Nano-seconds won't even be enough time for a typical ion channel to change its conformation to allow ions to pass through... And "pilot reaction" needs much much much more than the working of a single ion channel. Once the ion channels open / close, action potential is generated and transmitted up and down the neurons, which would take much longer time. I apologize for the nitpicking. I can't help it...
 

Brumby

Major
Sorry about my nerdiness, but pilot reaction time canNOT be measured in nano seconds. Typical time frame for opening and closing an ion channel is on the order of milliseconds, a million times slower than the "nano-second scale". Nano-seconds won't even be enough time for a typical ion channel to change its conformation to allow ions to pass through... And "pilot reaction" needs much much much more than the working of a single ion channel. Once the ion channels open / close, action potential is generated and transmitted up and down the neurons, which would take much longer time. I apologize for the nitpicking. I can't help it...

No apologies needed. If the wrong unit of measure is being used then it should be corrected to reflect appropriately human reflex response.

My bad here. I blame it on residual memory effect of Planck time discussions on another forum where other time unit of measure became inconsequential.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
OK some news again on this topic. Besides Boeing and Lockheed, Northrop is now also officially in the race. They, too, are indicating a tailless, supersonic design as the likely outcome. Will be interesting to see what technology will be there besides conventional 3D TVC to overcome the issues of a tailless design. Some kind of active flow controll next to / within the engine maybe. I think that's hot gas injection?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Northrop has been floating concepts for Sixth gens for a while. As far back as 2010 they were releasing images of potential fighters always tailless types to. It's just that well Boeing and Lockheed have gone full bore Northrop was working in the QT.
 

strehl

Junior Member
Registered Member
Strehl, this thread is pretty specifically about the F/A-XX and F-X 6th gen fighter programs. While we do not mind some speculation regarding those specific programs and what they may become, your comment is pretty far OT and has taken the entire thread with it.


Sorry, I will cease and desist. My take on "6th generation" is the 2020-2030 time frame rather than anything being currently discussed.
 
It's from today:
Pentagon Unveils Program to Help Build 6th Generation Fighter
The Pentagon is poised to unveil a new collaborative research program in the upcoming 2016 defense budget submission which will seek to identify and develop dominant, next-generation aircraft technologies for the Air Force and Navy.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, mentioned the effort Wednesday to lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee at a hearing on Pentagon technology and acquisition reform.

The new research program will involve the Pentagon’s research arm, called the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency, or DARPA. It will focus on new airframe and engine technology for future jet fighters, cargo planes and unmanned systems. Among other topics, the research effort will work closely on what 6th–generation fighter aircraft technologies will be needed to build an aircraft to succeed the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Various new designs for Navy and Air Force airplanes will be identified as “X”-planes, a Pentagon term often used to signify a yet-to-be-named platform under early development.

The Navy is in the early conceptual stages of an effort called F/A-XX designed to replace the F-18 in the 2030s. Service officials have not said much about this effort, in part because it is so early and there is plenty of scrutiny on the fifth generation fighters.

“Smart skins” which connect the fuselage with computer technology, super cruise ability and hypersonic speeds are among some of the technical attributes deemed likely to inform future designs, analysts maintain.

Lt. Gen. Mark Ramsay director, force structure, resources and assessment for the Joint Staff, told HASC lawmakers the new effort involves air and space domain innovation initiatives.

“We’re looking at domains and how we are going to fight the future fight,” Ramsay told the committee.

When asked by a lawmaker, Ramsay said it would probably take about 15-years to develop a new, fully-developmental next-generation aircraft to replace the A-10 Warthog.

The rationale for the new effort hinges upon a much discussed global phenomenon – the pace of technological and military modernization of potential adversaries and near peer competitors such as China and Russia. There may well be a need for the U.S. to develop and field a 6th generation fighter aircraft because both Russia and China are known to be developing stealth aircraft engineered potentially to challenge the F-35.

“We are at risk and things are getting worse. I came back to the Pentagon in 2010 after being away. The intelligence estimates when I left in 1994 were that China was really not much of a problem for us but in 10 or 15 years they could be based on their economic rate of growth. The intelligence estimates were correct,” Kendall told the committee.

Numerous Pentagon and Congressional reports have detailed public information regarding the rapid growth of China’s missile arsenal, naval fleet, ground army and anti-satellite technologies.

Kendall said the U.S. no longer enjoys the overwhelming technological superiority it had during and after the first Gulf War in 1991. As many remember, the first Gulf War featured the combat debut of some precision guided weapons just as Joint Direct Attack Munitions or JDAMs, some stealth technologies and other kinds of military innovations. This military superiority has lasted more than 25-years and has served the U.S. well in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia and Libya, Kendall explained in a written statement.

“I became alarmed as soon as I started seeing technical intelligence reports on China’s modernization programs. I could say the same of Russia’s modernization programs as well. We came out of the Cold War with a very dominant military. We demonstrated that military conclusively in the first Gulf War and we used it effectively against any conventional force since. Since 2001 we’ve been involved in counter insurgency,” Kendall said. “The precision-munitions revolution that we demonstrated has been emulated by others.”

In particular, Kendall explained how certain potential adversaries are deliberately developing systems and technologies designed to counter U.S. high-value assets such as satellites, air fields and aircraft carriers.

Potential adversaries such as China, Russia and Iran have studied U.S. military superiority and have been closing the gap, in part by fielding precision missiles able to threaten U.S. power projection capabilities.

For example, the Chinese military is developing a long-range anti-ship cruise missile, the DF-21D, said by analysts to have a range up to 900 nautical miles. While there is some speculation as to whether it could succeed in striking moving targets such as aircraft carriers, analysts have said the weapon is in part designed to keep carriers from operating closer to the coastline.

“Some countries, China particularly, but also Russia and others, are clearly developing sophisticated weapons designed to defeat our power-projection forces. Even if war with the U.S. is unlikely or unintended, it is quite obvious to me that the foreign investments I see in military modernization have the objective of enabling the countries concerned to deter and defeat a regional intervention by the U.S. military,” said Kendall in a written statement to the committee.

The U.S. relies on high-value assets such as airfields, aircraft carriers and space-based satellites, for intelligence, targeting, communication and the ability to project power, Kendall said. These assets could potentially be targeted by high-tech, long-range precision-guided ballistic and cruise missiles, Kendall explained.

Large numbers of accurate, technologically advanced missiles such as this could potentially get through the best of current U.S. air defense systems, Kendall said.

“We have been doing some things to try to address the problem. This is a serious problem for the country. It is not just missiles it is other things such as electronic warfare capability, anti-satellite capability – a number of things which I think that are being developed very consciously to defeat the American way of projecting power. We need to respond to that,” Kendall said.

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Although this is my personal speculation but I believe Boeing and Mitsubishi will make a collaborated bid to the F/A-XX development program.
Techical Research and Developement Institute, the research arm of the Defense Ministry had already floated i3 fighter concept 3 years ago which is basically the same as the considered guide line.
 
more news:
Kendall Unveils 6th Gen Fighter Strategy
WASHINGTON — Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall unveiled part of his strategy for procuring a next-generation fighter for the Air Force and Navy in congressional testimony last week.

The core of the strategy, Kendall told members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), is called the Aerospace Innovation Initiative.

"What it will be is a program that will be initially led by [the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency]. But it will involve the Navy and the Air Force as well," Kendall said. "The intent is to develop prototypes for the next generation of air dominance platforms, X-plane programs, if you will."

The initiative will also include work on a next-generation engine, Kendall said, adding that more details about the plan will appear in the fiscal 2016 budget request being unveiled this week.

Whereas the F-35 joint strike fighter was billed as one plane that can fit the needs of the Air Force, Navy and Marines, the next-generation fighter will instead be two planes that share common parts.

The Navy and Air Force have offices looking at a next-generation fighter that would replace the Navy's F/A-18s and the Air Force's F-22s, respectively. An Air Force official told Defense News in September that he hopes to have Milestone A acquisition activity started in fiscal 2018.

The 6th generation initiative will be a "fairly large-scale" program, and one that Kendall said was designed with the industrial base in mind.

"The only reason the department's doing that is to preserve the design teams that can do this next-generation of capability in that area, because once those design teams go away, we've lost them and it's very hard to get them back," Kendall said in response to a question by HASC Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas.

"In very specialized areas, like you mentioned electronic warfare, that's a very special skill set and you can't develop somebody who is an expert at that overnight; it takes time," Kendall continued. "And you get that expertise by working on programs, by developing new cutting-edge things."

Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, said the emphasis on protecting design teams is smart, especially as other major programs are winding down.

"There are a lot of people working diligently on the Long Range Strike-Bomber. When that decision is made [in the spring], that will let go of some people," he said, adding the future of the Navy's Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike program is also unclear. "People can only be kept so long without a contracting path. At its essence, it really gets down to preserving these design teams that will dissipate."

Timing will be a key question with the initiative, Callan said. If the program takes 10 years to develop a prototype, it is much less effective than if this Initiative is targeting a five year window.

What other specialized technologies might be involved in a 6th-generation fighter are unclear, but there may be some hints in comments made by Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work at a Jan. 28 Center for a New American Security event.

Work said upcoming budgets will feature funding lines to invest "in promising new technologies and capabilities, including unmanned undersea vehicles; sea mining; high speed strike weapons; an advanced new jet engine; rail gun technology; and high energy lasers."

The announcement of the initiative could also be a warning shot at Lockheed Martin, whose F-35 is just now gearing up to go operational. If the company doesn't keep costs down on the program, Callan said, the Pentagon could consider moving future funding for F-35 procurement over to this next-generation system.

"I think by injecting some alternatives back into the mix, at the very least Kendall is going to have a pricing tool," Callan noted. "He has to keep Lockheed on its toes, because Lockheed obviously wants to keep F-35 as relevant as it can, so they'd better keep coming up with good ideas for future software releases, for continuing to drive down the airplane's cost, and just make it relevant."

It is assumed that Boeing and Lockheed are working on concepts for sixth-generation, while Northrop has confirmed it has teams assigned to developing a new design. Interestingly, Northrop's setup mirrors that of the initiative, with coordination over shared systems but two teams assigned to developing a pair of different designs.

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top