Who is gonna make the 5-gen fighter first?

[OPSSG]

Personally i wouldn't even put Rafale in the 4.5th gen basket. What differentiates 4.5th gen platforms is the primacy placed on information dominance within the avionics suite and limited RCS reduction. IMHO only the Typhoon, F-15E BII and F/A-18F BII meet this requirement (the Su-35BM may but we'll wait and see) and thus the Rafale is an advanced 4th gen platform. Its a borderline case IMHO, and if all of its planned avionics options ever do make it into service then maybe it will join the Typhoon in the 4.5th gen platform.

@Todjaeger, so far my favorite scheme of classification is the one done by Ozzy Blizzard.

But I'm not sure if I would classify the F-15E BII, 4.5 gen and leave the Rafale (with reduced RCS technology) as a 4th gen.

IMHO, AESA radar availability is also an important criteria in the 4.5 gen. For the USAF F-15s, they will be getting their AESA radar upgrades soon and the Rafale will also be getting AESA radar ahead of the Typhoon. So, I'm a little confused.

 

[gf0012-aust]

General Note to all.

Some of you are not editing your quotes properly. can you please make the effort to review and fix where necessary - other wise it results in misquoting comments made by one poster to another, and generally looks untidy if not disrespectful to the original poster.

 

[Gerry301]

General Note to all.

Some of you are not editing your quotes properly. can you please make the effort to review and fix where necessary - other wise it results in misquoting comments made by one poster to another, and generally looks untidy if not disrespectful to the original poster.

Thank you. I have been learning as I go and am not aware of all the different means of editing "quotes". I find it frustrating as I have tried several different methods to do so. Obviously I am not the sharpest knife on the block when it comes to editing. Do you have some recommendations that would be of use?

I.e., I would like to only quote a part of a previous entry, but have been unable to do so. Thus I quote the entire entry. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thank you. I have been learning as I go and am not aware of all the different means of editing "quotes". I find it frustrating as I have tried several different methods to do so. Obviously I am not the sharpest knife on the block when it comes to editing. Do you have some recommendations that would be of use?

I.e., I would like to only quote a part of a previous entry, but have been unable to do so. Thus I quote the entire entry. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

no probs, will have a chat to the other Mods and Web and see if there is a "how to" that we can refer people to.

the easiest way to review though is to go in and edit your post.

where you have quoted someone it should end with the closing syntax. ie you should not have 2 x quote syntaxes then only one closing syntax. thats when it mucks up.

using round brackets as an example (as squares will not make the editing process visible to you)

(quote=gerry) insert text (/quote) will generate

insert text

the errors I fixed earlier were as below:
(quote=gerry) (quote) insert text (/quote) as has happened earlier with a few of you will generate the following layout error

insert text

Hope this helps.

gf

 

[macman]

MMIC chips are Monolithic microwave integrated circuit chips, which have become pretty widely available - used in cellular & WiFi technologies.
AESA uses GaAs chips (one of the subsets of MMIC chip construction) as far as I know, although there are mentions of new materials for future developments.

When the US first developed the AESA, they had to almost develop a lot of this stuff from scratch - a very expensive undertaking.
Much easier & cheaper now in comparison.

For many of the other necessary components, COTS technology now available is much more advanced than the stuff the US was purpose building at the time.

The first & second generations of the Russian's (or the European's) AESA's will not be as advanced as the current generation of the US radar's, who have 20 years of experience & the infrastructure to match, but by the second generation will likely be roughly equivalent in their essential performance parameters.

As for Russian chips, they seems to advancing pretty fast, although still some way to go.
Russia is becoming a key outsourcing destination for high-end R&D - most of the big companies have set up there in technology parks, and there is about US$15 billion dedicated to expanding their high end chip building capabilities (the 'nanotechnology' project started a while back).
Funding looks likely to continue inspite of financial crisis.

 

[Marc 1]

The US has designs on the drawing boards (or so I've heard) for the 6th generation aircraft .

Gerry, what is the definition of a 6th Gen a/c?

 

[Feanor]

Gerry, what is the definition of a 6th Gen a/c?

There really isn't one. At least not at this point. At this point we're still debating about what the definition of 4.5th and 5th gens are.

 

[windscorpion]

6th generation will mean whatever it takes to differentiate a product from it's competitors. We can speculate but i suspect not even the USAF knows what 6G means yet.

Speculation can be fun though. Laser weapons, seamless integration with UCAVs, very long range, synthetic cockpit canopys, and then we start getting into sci-fi.

 

[Human Bass]

USA:
F-22
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2008/06/specifications-of-f-22-raptor.html
F-35
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/06/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-relax.html

Russian Su-PAKFA
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2008/01/su-pakfa-russian-stealth-fighter.html
And India Variant Sukhoi/HAL FGFA
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2008/10/sukhoihal-fgfa-indian-stealth-fighter.html

Japanese Mitsubishi ATD-X ShinShin
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2008/01/mitsubishi-atd-x-shinshin-japanese.html

And Iran
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/09/iranian-stealth-plane.html

These are the only programs with concrete evidence of existence.

Well Clearly US has won the competition of "The first 5th gen fighter" to come out.

And looks like F-35 is going to come earlier than Su-PAKFA.

And there is Iran it looks more like a attack plane than a fighter plane.

nfloorl: at Iran

 

[Gerry301]

Gerry, what is the definition of a 6th Gen a/c?

Since you asked,

Most people would probobly say stealth in an unmanned vehicle. But I think the 6th generation will be built on speed. Not Mach 3 or 4, but perhaps Mach 8-10 . Any weapons systems and avionics at those speeds would have to be capable of being used at those speeds. The advantages would be enormous.

Those capabilities are being looked at now and experimental engines are being tested.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Since you asked,

Most people would probobly say stealth in an unmanned vehicle. But I think the 6th generation will be built on speed. Not Mach 3 or 4, but perhaps Mach 8-10 . Any weapons systems and avionics at those speeds would have to be capable of being used at those speeds. The advantages would be enormous.

Those capabilities are being looked at now and experimental engines are being tested.

Slight disagreement IMO.

Unmanned are already viewed in generational concepts - so I think it needs to be limited to manned definitions.

in that case, the next big jump in development is hypersonics - although manned hypersonics are not that effective when you consider that the issue is weapons on target - and that means hypersonic weapons (which are developing at a nice pace)

 

[Gerry301]

Slight disagreement IMO.

Unmanned are already viewed in generational concepts - so I think it needs to be limited to manned definitions.

in that case, the next big jump in development is hypersonics - although manned hypersonics are not that effective when you consider that the issue is weapons on target - and that means hypersonic weapons (which are developing at a nice pace)

I don't argue that point and am aware of hypersonic weapons in the experimental stage as well.

However it is very reasonable to have a high speed fighter , manned by pilots who can do the things unmanned vehicles can't. If you think about it the SR-71 developed in "1964" could go at mach 3.2 (2,200mph) at an altitude of 85,000 ft.

Imagine a manned air superiority fighter with matching weapons "cruising" at mach 6 or 7 (3,600-4,200 mph) or higher engaging an adversary, or dropping precision weapons on highly defended targets. The kinetics at those speeds would make it 6th generation.

Well within our capability and not an unreasonable idea to field by 2030-40.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don't argue that point and am aware of hypersonic weapons in the experimental stage as well.

However it is very reasonable to have a high speed fighter , manned by pilots who can do the things unmanned vehicles can't. If you think about it the SR-71 developed in "1964" could go at mach 3.2 (2,200mph) at an altitude of 85,000 ft.

Imagine a manned air superiority fighter with matching weapons "cruising" at mach 6 or 7 (3,600-4,200 mph) or higher engaging an adversary, or dropping precision weapons on highly defended targets. The kinetics at those speeds would make it 6th generation.

Well within our capability and not an unreasonable idea to field by 2030-40.

again, I have a different view.

hypersonic manned aircraft is an issue about projection (ultimately)
the future is about persistence of presence - and that means a condition of sensor and delivery overwatch where there is a relative immediacy of launch (hypersonic and directed energy)

a manned solution that manages a swarm of weapons carriers or response systems is far more useful than a manned fighter - because it means that the "warfighting constellation" exponentially delivers far more capability at the footprint level.

 

[Feanor]

I think gf0012 has a better idea, because he's approaching it at a systems level. However the question really is whether that kind of a fighter is even a classic jetfighter in the modern day term. I would say that generational comparisons would be obsolete because that type of system would be beyond a single platform. One could argue that each hypersonic weapon is it's own platform, with the manned solution providing C4I for them.

 

[Gerry301]

I think gf0012 has a better idea, because he's approaching it at a systems level. However the question really is whether that kind of a fighter is even a classic jetfighter in the modern day term. I would say that generational comparisons would be obsolete because that type of system would be beyond a single platform. One could argue that each hypersonic weapon is it's own platform, with the manned solution providing C4I for them.

I have no doubt gfo12 has a better idea and that eventually unmanned fighters will be a reality. But I don't believe we have reached the point where unmanned systems will be better.

Yes, there will eventually be hypersonic weapons and eventually hypersonic unmanned fighters. But the control that a human has in the cockpit vastly outways the control from 10,000 miles away in a small room. (or a large room with 10 people deciding what to do).

The issue is 6th generation and not 7th or 8th.

We have certain possible technologies that can be used for a next generation fighter and other technologies that will not be mature for another 80-100 years. As an avid reader of science fiction since I was a child, very little has come true. It all will eventually, but not as fast as we dream.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But I don't believe we have reached the point where unmanned systems will be better.

ah, but I'm not proposing that unmanned aircraft will manage the swarm. I'm suggesting that a manned asset will manage the swarm - and it need not be a fighter. we''re at that nexus on where management of the networked/fused capability is happening at trials already

Yes, there will eventually be hypersonic weapons and eventually hypersonic unmanned fighters. But the control that a human has in the cockpit vastly outways the control from 10,000 miles away in a small room. (or a large room with 10 people deciding what to do).

again, its context. eg theatre of action/operations. eg if you are engaged battlespace where you know that there are no blue forces, and that you're not expecting the 1400 from Paris fly overhead anytime soon, then weapons free becomes far more likely.

The issue is 6th generation and not 7th or 8th.

these aren't 7th gen, conceptually some of this stuff has been trialled for the last couple of years - in fact I'd argue that the tech shift means that gen 5 is about to get bypassed as well

We have certain possible technologies that can be used for a next generation fighter and other technologies that will not be mature for another 80-100 years. As an avid reader of science fiction since I was a child, very little has come true. It all will eventually, but not as fast as we dream.

Interesting because a couple of us attended a DARPA briefing recently where a dozen or so technologies which were seen as Buck Rogers capabilities are already in service or about to be.

Sensor tech, aviation tech, sub warfare/UDT has jumped in quantum leaps. 25 years ago aviation and sensor management engineers were saying that <1 RCS was an impossibility. 4 years ago conventional sub advocates were saying that nukes would always be noisy due to cooling issues. 20 years ago hypersonic weapons were regarded as 50 years away.

I can go on (at a weapons level) - but the science fiction analogy doesn't hold as much as people might think.

 

[dragonfire]

Since you asked,

Most people would probobly say stealth in an unmanned vehicle. But I think the 6th generation will be built on speed. Not Mach 3 or 4, but perhaps Mach 8-10 . Any weapons systems and avionics at those speeds would have to be capable of being used at those speeds. The advantages would be enormous.

Those capabilities are being looked at now and experimental engines are being tested.

Yeah - i think tht the next gen will be stealth and hypersonic capable aircrafts. We went supersonic with aircrafts a long long time ago - but hypersonic is still the next frontier, any country capable of launching a long distance hypersonic stealth fighter aircraft will have a huge advantage

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yeah - i think tht the next gen will be stealth and hypersonic capable aircrafts. We went supersonic with aircrafts a long long time ago - but hypersonic is still the next frontier, any country capable of launching a long distance hypersonic stealth fighter aircraft will have a huge advantage

But, the issue is not the platform. its the weapons system response - new weapons mean that the platform can and will stand off and is less and less likely to have to engage at a complex dogfighting level.

the whole of idea of hypersonics and directed energy weapons is stand further out and deliver outside of the response arc of the enemy - it means you can fight through or withdraw and still be at an effective engagement range.

Unmanned are already generational - and I can't see them being co-labeled with manned as there is no need to.

6th generation will be about management - not about speed

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But the control that a human has in the cockpit vastly outways the control from 10,000 miles away in a small room. (or a large room with 10 people deciding what to do).

How do you figure that? The pilot of a manned fighter only has one significant input that isn’t provided by the aircraft’s systems – vision out of the cockpit. Every other input is provided by the aircraft’s electronic systems and presented in the cockpit. New technology like the Northrop Grumman Distributed Aperture System (DAS) on the F-35 replaces limited human vision with spherical cameras and target recognition and tracking.

So why does being in a cockpit provide you with an advantage from being in an office 10,000 miles away? In the office you can have access to all the same inputs the pilot in the cockpit has, only interrupted by the lag and latency of the system (so maybe a second). You have all the advantages of a safe and comfortable environment, toilet breaks, shift working, mass expertise to call on.

The of course there is the autonomous aircraft itself. It isn’t stupid it is more than capable of flying and fighting a mission – including making a range of complex decisions – all by itself. The only reason a human is in the loop is so the lawyers can prosecute someone when things go wrong. Since you have an autonomous system flying and fighting the aircraft the lag and latency is not an issue for simply 'managing', commanding and advising the autonomous fighter.

This idea that a brain able to discuss Nietzsche sitting on top of a rocket at 50,000 feet provides an inherent superiority to a computer programmed to process the same decision making cycles as a human fighter pilot (and able to do so in a far superior manner) gives you an edge in air combat is yet to be explained to me in a way I can accept. We don’t need strike fighters that can appreciate the view but ones’ able to complete the mission in the most effective manner.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

any country capable of launching a long distance hypersonic stealth fighter aircraft will have a huge advantage

There are inherent reasons why such a thing won't exist. In particular the kind of intake design needed for a hypersonic vehicle and the heating caused by friction as it moves through the air at Mach 5-6. Stealth is a slow business.