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

[Brumby]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A list of high tech stuff that are potential 6th gen candidates. Problem is that collectively they would make the JSF program like child's play. All these stuff potentially is so expensive to implement that the Air Force probably can only afford to buy one unit. LOL.

 

[aksha]

CNO: Next-Generation Navy Fighter Might Not Need Stealth

Read more:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Defense.org

The Chief of Naval Operations said the next-generation Navy fighter being developed to replace the F/A-18 may be less stealthy than expected, shedding a bit of new detail upon a topic not discussed much by Navy developers.

“You know that stealth may be over-rated,” Greenert said during a speed at the Office of Naval Research Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo, Washington D.C. “I don’t want to necessarily say that it’s over but let’s face it, if something moves fast through the air and disrupts molecules in the air and puts out heat – I don’t care how cool the engine can be – it’s going to be detectable.”

There has been some discussion among industry experts and analysts suggesting that state-of-the-art stealth technology may be less effective against increasingly modern, next-generation air defenses. Newer technologies for air defenses allow them to detect on multiple frequency bands, network to one another through faster processing speeds and track approaching aircraft at further and further distances.

The top Naval officer was referring to the ongoing conceptual effort called F/A-XX to begin conversations, plans and preparations for what a new,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

might need to look like, Navy officials have told Military.com.

One analyst said if Navy F/A-XX developers seek to engineer a sixth-generation aircraft, they will likely explore a range of next-generation technologies such as maximum sensor connectivity, super cruise ability and an aircraft with electronically configured “smart skins.”

Maximum connectivity would mean massively increased communications and sensor technology such as having an ability to achieve real-time connectivity with satellites, other aircraft and anything that could provide relevant battlefield information, said Richard Aboulafia, vice-president of analysis at the Teal Group, a Va.-based consultancy.

Greenert also said the new aircraft may also need to develop new weapons for future threats, according to a report by the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

“It has to have an ability to carry a payload such that it can deploy a spectrum of weapons. It has to be able to acquire access probably by suppressing enemy air defenses,” Greenert added. “Today it’s radar but it might be something more in the future.”

Also, the next-generation F/A-XX aircraft may not need to travel at high speeds, the CNO added.

“I don’t think it’s going to be super-duper fast, because you can’t outrun missiles,” he said.

The new aircraft will also have the technological capability to be unmanned.

“The weight that we put on an aircraft due to the pilot is kind of extraordinary. You can take that off and put sensors on there instead,” Greenert explained.



Read more:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Defense.org

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[A Bar Brother]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In June 2012, shortly after he was appointed as CNO, Greenert published an article in the Naval Institute’s Proceedings magazine that downplayed the importance of advanced platforms, including stealth aircraft, in favor of “payloads” including standoff weapons.

The US seems to be falling back to the Russian doctrine of using fast long range missiles and aircraft with large payloads.

 

[Jeff Head]

The US needs to increase its standoff weapon capability. Ther eis nothing wrong with that.

Because of budgetary issues at the cutrrent time, they are cutting back on some aircraft purchases and plans to help accommodate that.

but I would not take what the current CNO is saying in this budgetary environment too seriously when it comes to long range planning. I expect that there is a very strong possibility that the defense departments budgetary issues will be significantly reduced after the 2016 elections if a new administration takes office. The economic policies of an administration that will work directly with the new congress will improve the US financial picture across the board.

If that happens, I expect we will see a lot of these dire predictions and austere measures and plans improve tremendously.

Time will tell. As it is, when they say "not super fast," I take that to mean not hypervelocity. I do expect it will be a Mach 1.6+ aircraft.

When they say "not too stealthy," I do not take that to mean that it will have no stealth.

For its time frame I expect the 6th gen fighter to be a very capable aircraft in terms of speed, maneuverability, weapons payload, sensors, stealth, and electronics for the time frame, and designed to handle and defeat whatever opposition forces is projected that it would face,

 

[A Bar Brother]

The US needs to increase its standoff weapon capability. Ther eis nothing wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with that, it wasn't my point, but it is a new idea for the US to use long range air launched tactical weapons like Russia does from fighter aircraft.

Because of budgetary issues at the cutrrent time, they are cutting back on some aircraft purchases and plans to help accommodate that.

I haven't argued against it. All western armies are cutting down. The Marines got the best deal out of the F-35 program while the USAF got the worst (with the F-22 being cut down and the F-35 being delayed). OTOH, the navy has been steadily inducting the Super Hornets with little problems, and the UCAV program has been progressing well, so the F-35 is less of a priority for the USN compared to the USAF and USMC. The F-35C cuts are not unexpected considering the navy is willing to wait for the actual IOC with the Block 3F software package.

Time will tell. As it is, when they say "not super fast," I take that to mean not hypervelocity. I do expect it will be a Mach 1.6+ aircraft.

When they say "not too stealthy," I do not take that to mean that it will have no stealth.

The US Navy has little need for hypervelocity or higher levels of stealth than necessary for the time. All the recent wars were fought with the USAF flying the critical OCA missions. That helps the USN focus more on long range strike with their new aircraft. Whatever the navy may not require, the USAF can cover that up with their own F-22 replacement program.

When he said "not too stealthy," I'm pretty sure he is only referring to using too much RAM thereby weighing down the aircraft and restricting aerodynamics with shaping. As I have mentioned before there are other efficient ways to achieve broadband stealth. So I would actually expect the new aircraft to be more stealthy than the F-22 while relying less on shaping.

Once the F-22 replacement has done its job of breaking down doors, the navy will have a considerably reduced requirement for stealth.

 

[Jeff Head]

I haven't argued against it.

It was not my intent to say you had.

The US Navy has little need for hypervelocity or higher levels of stealth than necessary for the time.

Agreed. But they will have the speed and stealth necessary to ensure their significan advantage.

I'm pretty sure he is only referring to using too much RAM thereby weighing down the aircraft and restricting aerodynamics with shaping. So I would actually expect the new aircraft to be more stealthy than the F-22 while relying less on shaping.

Agreed, which for the stealth side was my point. As to speed, it is a similar set of reasoning.

Once the F-22 replacement has done its job of breaking down doors, the navy will have a considerably reduced requirement for stealth.

Well, I think that the US Navy is not going to largely rely on the USAF and F-22s for this. There may be times when they can...but, to begin with there are not enough F-22s, and secondly, the US Navy recognizes from hard experience that they have to have the capabilities to knock down the doors themselves in many instances.

With the increase of OPFOR capabilities now being the trend, the US cannot rely on experiences it has had in the post cold war era to overly influence future planning. The current admin wants to use this (post cold war experiences) as an excuse/justification to make cuts...but such thinking is political in nature more than anything else, and from a technology and war fighting capability standpoint, extremely short sighted.

 

[Scratch]

In that context I wonder how future (stand-off) missiles might be integrated with the new 6th gen fighter capabilities.
There's the JSSM with a long and really long range version, a 2.000lbs warhead and GPS guidance. Then there's JSOW with a medium to intermediate range, 500lbs warhead and GPS / (maybe homing?) warhead. And finally the future JSM with intermediate to long range, GPS / IIR guidance and a 250lbs warhead. Those offer a good baseline across the spectrum, IMO.
As future adds I see the following: giving them the modularity to allow multi-spectral seekers, two way data (including video) link using directional antennas for anti ESM / ECCM, streaming to and recieving updates from multiple sources.
The MALD will acompany them increase penetration capability.
Super-, Hypersonic missiles might be an option, but probably a more exotic one.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

6th Gen fighters seem to be aimed for a longer range with Advent engines, I would not be surprised if along with that they aimed for extended range weapons as well.

 

[Air Force Brat]

You're quite right, and I can't see it being unmanned in any sense, that's just more future speak, the technology is just not there at present, and I don't really see an upside. The CNO, Air Force and Navy are keeping all the doors open, that's just guvment speak for we don't have a clue where we are headed with this?? and they don't they are truly cluesless, the only real sensible solution at this time is to play the fifth generation out to fruition, this other business is just more psyho babble??? but they are very good at that?

After reading Admiral Greenert's speech, I stand by the above comments, while Admiral Greenert is a very fine Naval Officer and noted submariner with a year I believe on the deep submersible, NR-1, he in no way seems qualified to give a great deal of knowledgeable input into any aircraft performance parameters, design, manufacture, or operational criteria, except in the most superficial manner. That how I would qualify these comments, were he a Naval Aviator and Tactician, we might give his comments more credibility???

He most certainly seems to exhibit the bias against manned aircraft that we often find in the upper ranks of both Army and Naval leadership as of late, and an underestimation of the capabilities of the very able cadre of USAF, Marine, and Naval Aviators. To him they are a liability and take up payload, this most certainly does not reflect on any present reality of air warfare, nor any near future reality as unmanned aircraft are no-where near as capable where air combat is concerned. To hitch our wagon to some pipe dream is counter productive, and the retention of the in-glorious, "Dragon Lady", the U-2, gives full measure the proof that manned aircraft remain far superior to unmanned, even in the relatively simple realm of high altitude intelligence gathering?

Finally Admiral Greenert is in a political position on the joint chiefs, and politicians, even military politicians have other priorities than to build the most capable fighter aircraft on the planet, that task is obviously well down the list of considerations, particularly as Jeff has opined under this current administration??

 

[Air Force Brat]

yes, but check this:
CNO: Next-Generation Navy Fighter Might Not Need Stealth

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

EDIT
I repeat for AFB
LOL!

Even the highly complex is simple for the simple minded? No big deal, they're just pilots??? how hard could that be???
It does however illustrate very clearly the bias against aviators, even Naval and Marine aviators,,,,, but certainly against "zoomies", though some will continue to deny that reality??