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

[Brumby]

It would be of interest to see the amount of money they would incorporate into the 2016 budget.
It appears the immediate development effort is in airframe and engine. I suspect laser will be inserted when the technology reaches maturity. I would speculate that it may be a good idea not to hard wire a set of technologies as 6th gen but rather insert those technologies incrementally when they reach maturity. In this way they don't end up like the JSF program with concurrency issues and a significantly stretched program.

I* would also speculate that the development paths for both the Air Force and Navy program will eventually merged into a single Air Dominance asset program with a navalised version. In addition, the Navy version will not be a replacement for the F-35C but rather act as an air dominance fighter within the carrier air structure mix. Instead, I believe the F-35C version 2.0 will adopt the variable cycle engine (VCE) coming off the 6th gen engine program as its upgrade path as this will enhance its performance and range.

I guess time will tell.

 

[Brumby]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The CNO's view on the attributes of a 6th gen navy plane. I can't help noticing the common phrase being used regarding next gen tech of optionally manned. Whilst it sounds a logical development step but yet it is actually contradictory in my view which I cannot reconcile. The whole purpose of unmanned is to remove the pilot and all associated support systems so that you end up with a less costly but more range enhanced platform. Optionally manned doesn't advance an inch to the equation unless I am missing an important piece.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The CNO's view on the attributes of a 6th gen navy plane. I can't help noticing the common phrase being used regarding next gen tech of optionally manned. Whilst it sounds a logical development step but yet it is actually contradictory in my view which I cannot reconcile. The whole purpose of unmanned is to remove the pilot and all associated support systems so that you end up with a less costly but more range enhanced platform. Optionally manned doesn't advance an inch to the equation unless I am missing an important piece.

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?

 

[Jeff Head]

I think that there are plenty of military people involved on the Navy and Air Force side who have a very good idea of where they want these 6th gen aircraft to go. I believe that Lockheed, Boeing, Grumman, Northrup, etc also have a very good idea of what they can bring to the table in the time frame we are talking about.

Heck, with the existing autopilot capabilities we have, and with the software that has already been developed for existing unmanned aircraft like the X-47B, they can make the thing fly, land, and do quite a few missions in an unmanned role if they want.

But, to Brumby's point, if they intend to maintain both manned and unmanned (and for the air superiority role for the foreseeable future thy are going to have to) they are not going to gain the extra weight, more fuel, and other positive benefits that would come from removing the systems required to keep the pilot safe that they would otherwise get with a fully unmanned aircraft.

But they know they cannot do that..

Still, I believe there are good and valid reasons to say what they are saying. Here are a few:

1) It keeps the OPFOR guessing.

2) it satisfies come potential political thinking from others who want to push the envelope and say that it can be operated in an unmanned role in order to satify political/contribution considerations.

3) It allows flexibility for the aircraft for some mission parameters that the aircraft may be slated for.

4) It opens up more network centric warfare options where a piloted aircraft on certain missions (particularly for two-seater 6th gen aircraft) can control two or more unmanned aircraft with very high capabilities. (Sort of like what they are planning for the UCLASS, but with more capabilities).

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

US military unveils plan to develop sixth-gen fighters
By:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

WASHINGTON DC
Source: Flightglobal.com
15 hours ago
The US military is seeking to avoid the pitfalls of recent aircraft acquisition programmes as it plans for development of sixth-generation fighters.

Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, introduced a new “aerospace innovation initiative” in the Fiscal 2016 budget proposal.

The initiative funds X-plane prototypes to validate specific technologies that could be needed for a next-generation fighter. Past US Air Force studies, including for the "efficient supersonic air vehicle", have focused on developing tailless, supersonic designs using active aeroelastic wing technology.

The initiative breaks with past efforts, such as the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Those programs each began with lofty technological promises from industry, then foundered under cost overruns and developmental delays that in all cases resulted in a significant downsizing of eventually fleet size.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) will lead the effort in cooperation with the navy and air force, Kendall says. .

Both also the US air force and navy set aside small amounts of money in their 2016 budget proposals to quietly continue development of sixth-generation fighter aircraft that would enter service around 2030. DARPA’s budget for the AII is classified.

The air force included an $8 million next generation air dominance (NGAD) aircraft while the navy set aside $5 million for what it calls the FA-XX next generation fighter. Neither appropriation is a new-start for the services. Funding for NGAD fell from $15 million in the current fiscal year. Funding for the navy’s effort staid relatively flat from the $4.9 million it received in fiscal 2015.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Equation]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You think it would look anything like this bad boy here?

OR THIS..

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I bet not but who knows

 

[Equation]

I bet not but who knows

Either way I hope they do bring back the YF-23 or at least a revise version of it like on the first pic that I posted.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Aircraft development is evolutionary rarely revolutionary. YF23 will have a influence on sixth gens just has it has already had on PAK FA and J20. calling the sixth gen a revised version of the YF23 would be like calling the B2 a revised version of the Horten HO 229 or the F22A a revised F15. There is a influence a resemblance but it's passing the sixth gen fighters will be well and truly beyond what the YF23 could have been.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Aircraft development is evolutionary rarely revolutionary. ...

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

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.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

EDIT
I repeat for AFB

“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.

LOL!