European 5th Generation Fighters

[TrangleC]

@ rjmaz1:

I'd say the point is that aside the stealth technology, the F-22 and the F-35 are not more sophisticated than the Typhoon for example.
It has state of the art electronics, avionics, sensor systems, smaller but still as sophisticated and super cruise capable engines and also state of the art pilot-computer-interface equipment + a lot of other neat hightech gimmiks like the possibility to carry a cable decoy system and stuff like that.
That pretty much leaves the stealth characteristics and the size to be the advantages of the F-22 over the Typhoon.

That leaves us with the question whether that really is enough to make the F-22 and F-35 one generation ahead.

Since nobody can foresee how important classical stealth technology will be in the future, with all the development and improvement of anti-stealth technology already going on, we just don't know whether it will be such a important key technology on/above the battlefield of the future.
Maybe it will take some time to see whether it was this quantum leap or just a expensive technological dead end.

I do admit that the Typhoon of course is the more conservative approach of a next generation fighter, never the less it's highly sophisticated technology does make it clearly a generation ahead of what we got used to call the 4th generation by now. And like it's said in this article:
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw060713_1_n.shtml
(quote: ) "The strength of a fighter, ..., resides in its flexibility."
And i think the Typhoon is the design with the most emphasis on flexibility.
It certainly is not a outdated obsolete failure, just because somebody build a twice as expensive machine.

@ ajay_ijn:
Yes. Probably the wisest words in this thread so far.

 

[ajay_ijn]

@ rjmaz1:

I'd say the point is that aside the stealth technology, the F-22 and the F-35 are not more sophisticated than the Typhoon for example.
It has state of the art electronics, avionics, sensor systems, smaller but still as sophisticated and super cruise capable engines and also state of the art pilot-computer-interface equipment + a lot of other neat hightech gimmiks like the possibility to carry a cable decoy system and stuff like that.
That pretty much leaves the stealth characteristics and the size to be the advantages of the F-22 over the Typhoon.

That leaves us with the question whether that really is enough to make the F-22 and F-35 one generation ahead.

Since nobody can foresee how important classical stealth technology will be in the future, with all the development and improvement of anti-stealth technology already going on, we just don't know whether it will be such a important key technology on/above the battlefield of the future.
Maybe it will take some time to see whether it was this quantum leap or just a expensive technological dead end.

I do admit that the Typhoon of course is the more conservative approach of a next generation fighter, never the less it's highly sophisticated technology does make it clearly a generation ahead of what we got used to call the 4th generation by now. And like it's said in this article:
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw060713_1_n.shtml
(quote: ) "The strength of a fighter, ..., resides in its flexibility."
And i think the Typhoon is the design with the most emphasis on flexibility.
It certainly is not a outdated obsolete failure, just because somebody build a twice as expensive machine.

@ ajay_ijn:
Yes. Probably the wisest words in this thread so far.

I think US has to think about this.
they have poured in billions and billions of dollars of Designing every Stealth Aircraft like B-2, F-117A, F-35, F22.

My god, we can't even imagine about the Amount of Money US has invested. Especially the cost of a B-2 is just out of world.

So Most of Money that went into developing all these Aircraft have been

aimed at One and Only one Primary Factor, Stealth.

Necessity is the mother of invention.
There have studies under going About Radars and other sensors that can not only detect these but also track and provide guidance to SAMs for defeating so called "Stealth Aircraft"

The Research about Anti-Stealth Tech will surely not take as much what US took in developing stealh technology.

Just like a F-117A.
what if tommorow a Cost effective Russian Radar tied up with Obsolete SAM like SA-3 could Sucessfully shoot down a B-2.
Really horrible even to imagine. I can't imagine.

But looking at all these
I can repeat the same thing.

Stealth is just another way to fool the Radar, That has been going on from 50 years starting from ww2 times in an attempt to fool german Radars till today.
Despite of So many counter measures developed, Radars could defeat all of them.
Stealth may finally end up making Radar more capable and powerful enough to defeat any kind Challenge they face.

Its just another Chapter of Cat and Mouse Fight going on between Radar and Aircraft which may never end

Its just that Aircraft is ahead this time, Sooner or Later Radar will catch up.
​

 

[alfred]

When it comes down to it the f-22 isn’t made for exporting like most stealth American planes aren’t made to be exported. These planes were made for the USAF b/c almost no country would match the us in air superiority unless using the exact same aircraft. When u talks about US aircraft that are made for the market and yet still keep its superiority you have to think of the f-15. the f-15 still till date remains the only plane with a missile platform able to shoot orbital satellites with a first stage undetectable missile. the f-15 isn’t only faster than any EU fighter plane it commands higher agility and climb rate. the f-15 is going to be upgrade with new radar tech helped developed by south Korean and American companies that would make it have the best avionics system in the world. the f-15 is also cheaper than the typhoon and Rafael and 6 million dollars costlier than the gripen. Keep in mind the f-15 is the oldest of all these planes 35 years to exact. so my question is should the f-15 considered a fifth generation or 4 generation. Keeping in mind that Russia is probably the only country able to create a plane that’s able to take on it.
Also most people should keep in mind; in dog fighting no EU plane can match the F-22 or SU-37 by any means at all. So with that shouldn’t these planes belong in a class or generation that shows there superiority in comparison to others. And most countries just aren’t capable of building planes that match the f-22 or su-37. EU is probably richer than the US and is probably 10 times richer than Russia and yet they are unable to produce a plane that matches the f-22 or su-37 until the advent of the joint strike fighter and only with the help of the US. This peaks a lot about the capabilities of some countries and not economical standers

 

[TrangleC]

*sigh*
Sorry, but that hardly is worth a reply.

 

[rjmaz1]

*sigh*
Sorry, but that hardly is worth a reply.

Tell me about it..

Heres a good article about the generation of aircraft

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2005/articles/oct_05/gap/index.html

Pretty interesting.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Tell me about it..

Heres a good article about the generation of aircraft

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2005/articles/oct_05/gap/index.html

Pretty interesting.

In 5th Generation Fighter,
he never talked about a Typhoon or Rafale or Russian Fighter.
because the F-22 is 5th generation Fighter only for American Airforce because F-22 satisfies USAF Needs better than previous F-15s or F-16s.

 

[TrangleC]

I agree.
A bit one-sided, that article.
But that is typical. Especially articles from american authors tend to ignore non-american developments and achievements. At least that is my experience.

There are a lot of documentations about military technology running on a certain TV station here in Germany. Almost all of them are american productions, simply translated into german. And it is really astonishing how thoroughly they are ignoring non-american technology. They always interview some soldiers on a practice ground or some weapons manufacturer's spokesman and they brag about how their stuff is the best in the world, obviously having absolutely no clue about the rest of the world.
For example just yesterday there was one of those documentations again, this time about attack helicopters. For half an hour they talked about how the AH-64 is the best helicopter in the world, only comparing it to the Cobra and the Mil-24, not mentioning the Ka-50/51 or the Eurocopter Tiger with one word.
And that documentation was filmed in 2005.

 

[ajay_ijn]

I agree.
A bit one-sided, that article.
But that is typical. Especially articles from american authors tend to ignore non-american developments and achievements. At least that is my experience.
There are a lot of documentations about military technology running on a certain TV station here in Germany. Almost all of them are american productions, simply translated into german. And it is really astonishing how thoroughly they are ignoring non-american technology. They always interview some soldiers on a practice ground or some weapons manufacturer's spokesman and they brag about how their stuff is the best in the world, obviously having absolutely no clue about the rest of the world.
For example just yesterday there was one of those documentations again, this time about attack helicopters. For half an hour they talked about how the AH-64 is the best helicopter in the world, only comparing it to the Cobra and the Mil-24, not mentioning the Ka-50/51 or the Eurocopter Tiger with one word.
And that documentation was filmed in 2005.

yeah
and the situation for Russians is even worst.
Su-30 got attention recently due to much hyped Cope India Excercise.
otherwise, people would even forget about it.

And even when it comes to BVRAAMs, They specify only AMRAAM and AMRAAMski , Forgetting about either MICA or future Meteor.

BTW when will Meteor finally come out. 2008?

I think India would need it as our pakistani friends are getting AIM-120C.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I agree.
A bit one-sided, that article.
But that is typical. Especially articles from american authors tend to ignore non-american developments and achievements. At least that is my experience.

There are a lot of documentations about military technology running on a certain TV station here in Germany. Almost all of them are american productions, simply translated into german. And it is really astonishing how thoroughly they are ignoring non-american technology. They always interview some soldiers on a practice ground or some weapons manufacturer's spokesman and they brag about how their stuff is the best in the world, obviously having absolutely no clue about the rest of the world.
For example just yesterday there was one of those documentations again, this time about attack helicopters. For half an hour they talked about how the AH-64 is the best helicopter in the world, only comparing it to the Cobra and the Mil-24, not mentioning the Ka-50/51 or the Eurocopter Tiger with one word.
And that documentation was filmed in 2005.

Two things.

1. Television shows tailored for the general public are confined by time and cost and have to focus the subject matter on whats going to draw the biggest audiance.

2. Generally American Military Technology is the best almost across the board in every area. That doesnt mean we always deploy the upper limit of our tech(Commanche). But we could. Money is what makes the world go round and the USA has a virtually unlimited amount of money for military related R&D/espionage compared to other nations. Also since America is almost always at war somewhere in the world our weapon systems are being constantly tested and improved underfire rather than in studies or excercises like DERA or Cope India ect.

 

[Waylander]

"Generally American Military Technology is the best almost across the board in every area"

This sentence is so much biased I just don't know where to start.

You see your unlimited budget if you look at yozr fighter programms.

 

[DarthAmerica]

"Generally American Military Technology is the best almost across the board in every area"

This sentence is so much biased I just don't know where to start.

You see your unlimited budget if you look at yozr fighter programms.

Is it really baised? If you take a look across the full range of military technologies, America will generally be in the lead. Its not because I think America is magically superior. Its because of the fact that we go to and remain at war more AND have more money to fund our priorities. Also because America's interest are global as well as space bound. They tend to cover a broader range of requirements. Nothing is baised about that. And yes, look at our fighter programs. Limitless by comparison. We could fund a much larger airforce if we wanted to.

 

[Waylander]

Many countrys could fund a bigger military than they do now.

I agree that the US are No1 in overall capabilities but there are enough parts were other nations are better in terms of technologies and abilities.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Many countrys could fund a bigger military than they do now.

I agree that the US are No1 in overall capabilities but there are enough parts were other nations are better in terms of technologies and abilities.

I agree that other countries could field bigger militaries. But nothing near the capabilities of the USA. The economics of it make it impossible to be competitive with the USA in terms of capability.

Also while there are nations who have some specific technologies that are better than fielded(key word) US technologies. Thats most typically because the US doesnt have a requirement or focus in that niche area. An example would be Diesel Submarines. Its not that we couldnt make the worlds deadliest diesel. We just dont have a requirement for it. If we did though, we could over take any current technology in x amount of time depending on urgency either through our own R&D, buying you out or espionage. Its just a simple matter of being rich.

Air Campaigns have had a disproportionate amount of focus the last 20 years as the dominant form of modern warfare. As such America is operationally deploying a fighter that by very wide margins, exceeds anything that will come from abroad for at least 20 years and maybe longer. Of course there are other disciplines and where those disciplines have the ability to significantly change things America will more often then not have the lead in that area.

 

[Waylander]

But to talk about "what ifs" is not a good base for a discussion.

 

[DarthAmerica]

But to talk about "what ifs" is not a good base for a discussion.

The whole premise of this thread is a "what if" about European 5th Generation fighters. Which "what if" are you specifically refering to?

 

[kams]

other than India, Nobody is interested to tie up with Russia for the Next Generation Fighter program, even china rejected joining their program.
Nor Mig or Sukhoi have the money to invest in this project.
India cannot fund that much amount of money on thier own.

Russians used the money they got from selling Su-27/30 in developing TVC and experimental fighters like Su-47 etc.
Not many countries are interested in buying Russian Fighters in Large Numbers including India.
Fifth Generation fighter development needs Atleast 20-30 Billion Dollars.
who is gonna give them that much money.

One thing is Sure, Russians in no way can develop a Fighter like F-22.

The bottom line is, The more Stealthy the Fighter is , The more Research and funding is needed.

who is gonna give them money??

If India got doubts that Collapse of Russian Aviation Industry is inveitable, Then She will immediately switch to European Market.

Here is a bit of news about Indo-Russian joint 5th generation fighter project. It seems India is not too keen on PAK-FA of Sukhoi.

Indo-Russian

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 3:A team from Russia’s Sukhoi Design Bureau and Irkut gave a detailed classified presentation to the Defence Ministry on Thursday on its fifth generation fighter concept, but discrepancies have already begun to surface between New Delhi and Moscow over the proposed multi-billion dollar joint programme to develop and produce advanced stealth fighters for both countries in the next decade.

In essence, South Block has communicated to Moscow that the Russian fifth generation fighter programme, designated PAK-FA, is already at an advanced stage of design, which effectively negates the aspect of ‘‘joint-development’’ and has asked it to come up with a more ‘‘equal’’ proposal.

In fact, the government plans to tell Moscow in December at the sixth meeting of the India-Russia Inter-Government Commission that if billions of dollars are to flow from the Indian side for the joint project, Moscow needs a partner because its budget will not allow it to develop alone, then the IAF and HAL must be on board from scratch, so that the aircraft platform incorporates IAF operational needs as well.

The fifth generation joint project is still a futuristic one, though it was clear from Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s comments in Parliament today, that the government is taking strong note of lessons learnt from the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) programme for its other proposed project, the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA).

‘‘For expediting development work on MCA, government may consider collaboration with friendly countries,’’ he said. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) in Bangalore has already begun to conceptualise the MCA, possibly as India’s fifth-generation platform. The only operational fifth generation fighter right now is the American F/A-22 Raptor, with the F-35 Lightening II set to make its first flight this year.

India may be looking at Mig proposal more favorably than Sukhoi, while Moscow has cleared the Sukhoi project.

Does any one has details of Russian 5th Generation Fighter called I-21?

 

[Kurt Plummer]

I agree with Triangle-C that, given the jets of the F-teen period are all third generation (including the Super Bug and all Fulcrum/Flanker Derivatives) and the fourth generation includes only the F-22/Rafale/Gripen/Typhoon, that leaves only the the F-35 to truly define Gen-5 as not merely LO but _proliferated_ LO in a netcentric combat environment.

That said, the latter (networked systems) is likely more important than the former and once it is established, what go on to define Generation 6 is already a given:

CHEAP.

Cheap to acquire in an era where the supposedly 48-50 million dollar F-35 is in fact costing the U.S. 107 million dollars apiece and even in volume production will not likely go below 70.

Cheap to operate in an era when oil production is headed downwards (maximum nm on a given volume of fuel = highly specific performance envelopes, few of them 'fighter like').

Cheap to own in an era where perishable pilot skills are a joke that amounts to 90% training, 10% war /by decade/ as a function of fatigue life expenditure, new UPT pipe maintenance of diverse training assets and of course squadron base and deployment training.

Cheap to lose. Because the best way to kill someone is not with a 50:50 missile (it hits or it misses as an expression of it's total performance metric). But rather a missile which comes around for a second pass if it misses the first time.

Cheaper to lose. Because the next step after hunting weapons is the laser/maser/HPM series.

Under the above conditions, it's already a given that the best new 'fighters' will in fact be UCAVs. Because by either optimizing specifically to the fighter-only mission with the added benefit of LO to roll back the BVR arena you can create a 5,000lb weapons system that costs maybe 10 million dollars and throw it out there in the hundreds with supersonic performance that makes the Raptor look like a garbage truck.

Alternately, you can put all your design efforts into bomber platforms like the Neuron, A-45/47 and whatever comes out of China. Because as long as you have a large ISR capacity, every airframe is basically a weapons pylon which busses a missile to an appropriate range, after which the (RQ-4 with RTIP radar for instance) surveillance asset talks to the missile over it's own datalink as it flies out to make the intercept on it's own.

In this, nobody seems to pay heed to exactly how pedestrian most of the last three decades intercepts have been. Nor realize that if the missile can make that key second pass, it not the airframe which carries it is the true 'interceptor'.

ARGUMENT:
Fighters are a boys club way that countries use to measure the length of their respective national masculinity. With the fall in production of petroleum and the /minor/ role that air combat plays in 90% of wars (most especially OOTW but also MRCs) we cannot afford to indulge their egos anymore, especially if we are not going to out and out conquer what we defeat. Not accounting for ullage, a single F-16 takes off with typically 12,232lbs internally and in two 370 gallon tanks (7,200lbs + 5,032lbs). If you divide that by 6.8lbs per gallon for JP-8 or 1,799 gallons. If you divide that by 20 for the typical gasoline tank in a car (which _could_ be converted to run on aviation kerosene) thats 89 refuelings. If you divide that by 36 for three refuelings at a gasoline station per month over a 12 month period, you come up to 2.5 YEARS worth of automotive fuel.
For every single F-16 sortie.
You increase that to 20,000lbs for the F-22 and F-35 and the numbers go right thru the roof.
The Air Force stabbed itself in the heart when they let the rinky dink robotic sailplanes like the Predator fly into 'high threat' areas in preference to manned airframes due to the 'dumb-dangerous-repetitive' nature of select missions. Because what they have effectively proven is that the danger is only to men and that once you remove _their value_ from the equation, it is cheaper and certainly more efficient to put money into better bullets and accept the occasional attrition.

CONCLUSION:
We are poisoning our environment with massive CO2 emissions and nitrogen oxide attacks on the ozone. We are burning oil at an /incredible/ rate to support militarism that doesn't USE it's firepower to annihilate pests like the Iraqi Insurgency or the Syrian/Hezbollah conspiracy. All of which will only increase as other nations with actual production economies (PRC) begin to compete for remaining petro reserves while using dirty-but-cheap national coal reserves to power their own industries. The only possible conclusion is that war needs to pay for itself. Either by eliminating threats permanently so as to gain exclusive access to their strategic resources. Or by being used less often as a function of cheaper assets that can afford to be 'diplomacy by other means' thrown away without overinvestment in national pride. Anything else, whether you define it by timeline 'generations' or technical capabilities is just so much bunk in the face of the real uses of airpower and it's limits as a method of destroying or suppressing opponents effectively.


KPl.

 

[Totoro]

three questions:

1. how much savings in weight do you believe one'd get if designing an unmanned fighter for same mission of, say, f16? Overall, with cost of training of pilots etc, how much would savings add up over a, say, 25 year long lifetime?

2. what happens when, for any reason, remote piloting fails and ucav finds itself on its own? Would usaf invest in developing fighter ucavs even despite such scenario? AI programming is a guessing game, no matter what popular science articles say. Any respected scientiest will say its impossible to predict when a breakthrough in AI will be made that'd allow for true independent decisions that'd rival human made ones. It could be in 10 years time or in 100 years time.

3. politics. since we're living in an unperfect, real world, by how much do you think politics will slow down ucav fighter deployment? Even if technology was here tomorrow, would we need to wait till most of the current generals are retired before we see enough support of major proliferation of ucavs? That could be decades...

 

[DarthAmerica]

three questions:

1. how much savings in weight do you believe one'd get if designing an unmanned fighter for same mission of, say, f16? Overall, with cost of training of pilots etc, how much would savings add up over a, say, 25 year long lifetime?

2. what happens when, for any reason, remote piloting fails and ucav finds itself on its own? Would usaf invest in developing fighter ucavs even despite such scenario? AI programming is a guessing game, no matter what popular science articles say. Any respected scientiest will say its impossible to predict when a breakthrough in AI will be made that'd allow for true independent decisions that'd rival human made ones. It could be in 10 years time or in 100 years time.

3. politics. since we're living in an unperfect, real world, by how much do you think politics will slow down ucav fighter deployment? Even if technology was here tomorrow, would we need to wait till most of the current generals are retired before we see enough support of major proliferation of ucavs? That could be decades...

Three answers

1. The savings are going to be enourmous. Orders of magnitude even. Just think about the maintenance necessary for pilots to sustain proficiency. None of this is necessary for a UCAV.


2. The AI is achievable already today. None of this is a guessing game at all. Its very methodical and very exact. By 2020 the AI will at least be capable of human levels of performance and probably be capable of far exceeding it.

3. Politics can only delay progress so long as the requirement doesnt exist. Against todays opponents this is a luxury and we have the tools necessary to achieve victory. Thus we can afford the caution. 10 years from now in the face of different requirements the same wont be true. If you spec it, they will come.

 

[Totoro]

I was a bit vague there, there were two parts to my savings question. One would be money saving and other is savings in weight of the airframe. Also, it'd be helpful if some actual numbers would be put on the table. Of course one'd have to guesstimate but still - its better than saying savings would be huge. huge in relation to what?

If you would be so kind to give examples of best ai developed so far i'd be grateful. Otherwise its seriously hard to believe human level would be achieved in years let alone it is here today. Sure, basic things can be programmed today, ordering the plane to do A if B through Z happens, covering literally billions if not trillions of possible situations... but that's not enough. Real enviroment is so unpredictable and programming bugs are such an integral part of programming that its impossible to tell just how well the AI would fare against human opponent. Sure, a lot of times mission might be accomplished in a satisfactory way. defensive long range air to air fights come to mind first. But as we get into a closer fight, as we go deeper into enemy territory and ask for more complex ground strikes or god forbid close combat support for ground troops - i'd say we face some huge ai related problems.