Typhoon replacement.

[PeterCrisp]

I know the Typhoon has only just come into service but given that it takes decades to get a new fighter designed and the first test aircraft flown I'm curious as to when work on a successor will start? Will the first design mock-ups start to be shaped and discussed this decade and do you think the same group of countries will be in next time or will it be an even wider European project?

I'd like to hope that Europe can keep a solid aerospace industry capable of building top class fighters so I personally hope they start working on the new Aircraft by the end of this decade for first flight around 2030. Maybe it can come into service about 2035 in time for some of the older Typhoons to get a much needed rest.

 

[Scorpion82]

About 10 years ago there were talks about the collaboration of Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain and Sweden about a potential collaboration on a future fighter, but I have no idea wether there were any further talks or not. I haven't heared anything since and I don't expect anyone to start even thinking about it before the production of the current aircraft is completed for the core nations. A larger collaboration might be possible but the question is with whom? It wouldn't make much sense to start of right now, but to make a jump from the Typhoon, skipping something like the F-22/35, to something else. What interests me is wether we'll see another manned fighter or wether they will opt for an unmanned platform.

 

[Feanor]

Given the trend currently Europe is out of the fighter jet game. There will be no 5th generation Euro fighter. Russia, China, and the US will have them. India, and Britain as partners with high levels of access will get most of the technology. Almost everyone else will have to be importing.

 

[Palnatoke]

Given the trend currently Europe is out of the fighter jet game. There will be no 5th generation Euro fighter. Russia, China, and the US will have them. India, and Britain as partners with high levels of access will get most of the technology. Almost everyone else will have to be importing.

What?

Unlike the other countries you mention, EU and US are commercially leading aircraft producers, There is no reason to think that Europe won't continue it's aerospace succes, which will naturally include a millitray dimension.

 

[elgatoso]

Ramjet and Scramjet technology will be a game changer in fighters,maybe this is the last generation of fighters jets.

 

[Bonza]

I know the Typhoon has only just come into service but given that it takes decades to get a new fighter designed and the first test aircraft flown I'm curious as to when work on a successor will start? Will the first design mock-ups start to be shaped and discussed this decade and do you think the same group of countries will be in next time or will it be an even wider European project?

I'd like to hope that Europe can keep a solid aerospace industry capable of building top class fighters so I personally hope they start working on the new Aircraft by the end of this decade for first flight around 2030. Maybe it can come into service about 2035 in time for some of the older Typhoons to get a much needed rest.

Well it depends on the nation in question, but personally I think it'll be a UCAV. I bang on a lot about UCAVs but if you're looking at a timeline of the 2030s it's a definite possibility, and in my view more likely than a direct Typhoon replacement. If there's a manned platform in the futures of most Eurofighter-equipped nations, then if anything I'd say it'll be the F-35 supplementing the existing Eurofighter force, then in turn supplemented and eventually replaced by UCAVs as the technology matures.

With the existing technology demonstrators for UCAVs advancing at their current pace, and the logic that a platform introduced in the 2030s is going to have to serve through to the 2050-2060s, the unmanned solution definitely looks viable. It's subject to the requirements of a given air force against the limitations of the technology available at the time of course, but personally I think the next two decades are going to see incredible revolutions in military robotics, and I think the European aerospace industry is well-placed to capitalize on that with follow-on projects to things like the Taranis and nEUROn technology demonstrators.

All speculation on my part, of course.

 

[Wall83]

I think that Typhoon could be the last fighter from Europe. If Russia or another near country becomes a big threat onces again then maybe new onces will be developt.
I from sweden and here its not even political correct to talk about a future fighter after Saab 39 Gripen. The armed forces is just getting smaller and smaller and the only thing getting money now days is international missions. No I think cheaper unmanned aircraft will be developt insted. I know that Saab is in collaberation with Dassault on the nEUROn.

 

[Feanor]

What?

Unlike the other countries you mention, EU and US are commercially leading aircraft producers, There is no reason to think that Europe won't continue it's aerospace succes, which will naturally include a millitray dimension.

Naturally? I don't know. It's a matter of budget allocations not a matter of the technology or capability (at this point in time). The point is that it's 2010 and there isn't even a program directed at producing one. The US has one in serial production, another one in testing. Russia has one in testing. China has one under development. Everyone else is happy with either imports, or their 4.5th gen stuff.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What interests me is wether we'll see another manned fighter or wether they will opt for an unmanned platform.

I read an interesting proposal from Boeing a few months ago for a 6th gen platform, it was to be equipped with a cockpit but could act as a UAV. I found that concept intriguing, fitted for, but not with, a pilot.

It makes sense when you think about it, there are still roles that require a human on the scene so why not have a platform that can do both? Intriguing times in aviation.

 

[Scorpion82]

I agree with you OB. Isn't there an option to "unman" the F-35 as well? Mean to remember I have read something in that direction. I personally doubt Europe will design a "5th generation" fighter, it wouldn't make sense to start with such right now. Aircraft like the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon are good enough for the forseeable future and it would be better make the jump to the next generation (the 6th), rather than wasting money especially as some of those nations are procuring the F-35 anyway and some of them are even involved. The rest is currently looking into unmanned platforms in the first place.

 

[Bonza]

I agree with you OB. Isn't there an option to "unman" the F-35 as well? Mean to remember I have read something in that direction. I personally doubt Europe will design a "5th generation" fighter, it wouldn't make sense to start with such right now. Aircraft like the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon are good enough for the forseeable future and it would be better make the jump to the next generation (the 6th), rather than wasting money especially as some of those nations are procuring the F-35 anyway and some of them are even involved. The rest is currently looking into unmanned platforms in the first place.

I think I've read a similar thing re the F-35 in "Wired for War" by PW Singer, and its mentioned in the following article (from 2006 mind you):

Lockheed Martin reveals plans for unmanned F-35 JSF among other new UAV concepts-15/08/2006-Washington DC-Flightglobal.com

I do wonder whether or not they'll bother with optionally manned platforms, though. If indeed the F-35 becomes capable of such a thing, would there be any point in building another platform with similar capabilities before moving on to entirely unmanned platforms? I think it could be argued that human pilots only provide an advantage or unique capability up to a certainly point of technological development, one that's getting closer every day.

I guess it depends on the requirements though, as Ozzy said, for roles that still require a human presence. If we're looking at a timeframe of the 2030s though I'm not sure whether a human presence will be a requirement at all (but then, I have no idea what the battlefield of the 2030s is going to look like at all, either).

 

[FluffyThoughts]

A slight aside, but we are assuming that aviation will still be designed around the oil-economy. What happens if oil hits $300-a-barrel, or if miniturisation makes an electic-cell vehicle feesible?

As for the question 'could Europe skip 5th-generation aircraft': no. Better to build a fifth-generation aircraft (i.e. a CAS/trainer replacement for the FutureHawk) before moving on to whatever a sixth-generation 'craft may be. Certainly our Indian cousins think so...!

 

[riksavage]

The next gen replacement will be unmanned for the following simple reasons:

1. No need for expensive life support infrastructure (Martin Baker seats, oxygen, onboard flight controls etc);

2. No more restrictions relating to human G-Force tolerance, maneuvers limited only by stress on airframe and design of engines (thrust vectoring);

3. No more concerns about casualty rates and subsequent impact upon public opinion or need for expensive and labour intensive SAR support;

4. Long endurance - ability to say aloft for extended periods' and

5. Ground based pilot and navigators will be able to fly a multitude of aircraft simultaneously, switching between airframes according to surrounding circumstances (landing / take off fully automated, flight to and from target fully automated, hands-on only during final CAP/CAS mission run-ins)

To me it's a no brainer, add in the financial savings associated with not trainig and supporting fast jet aircrews and you are on to a win, win scenario; particularly in high intensity warfare where the limiting factor is not loss of airframes, but loss of aircrews who are not easily replaced because they require years of training to become expert fliers.

You could keep a pool of ACES who relax whilst the less able fly the mission to the start line. The ACES would then take over, rested and fresh for the final segment of the mission. Once complete they would hand back the airframe to the rookies to oversee the return home. The crews would either sit in hardened bunkers or on carriers in comfortable surroundings. Reduced stress on the body (not having to pull G's) would enhance performance in combat.

Should the pilot / UCAV interface be severed because of damage, failure or jamming then the UCAV could be set with a default mode returning to base along a pre-designated flight path.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The next gen replacement will be unmanned for the following simple reasons:

1.No need for expensive life support infrastructure (Martin Baker seats, oxygen, onboard flight controls etc.);

No more restrictions relating to human G-Force tolerance, maneuvers limited on by stress on airframe and design of airframe;

No more concerns about casualty rates and impact upon public opinion or need for expensive and labour intensive SAR support;

Long endurance - ability to say aloft for extended periods' and

Ground based pilot and navigators will be able to fly a multitude of aircraft simultaneously, switching between airframes according to surrounding circumstances (landing / take off fully automated, flight to and from target fully automated, hands-on only during final CAP/CAS mission run-ins)

To me it's a no brainer, add in the financial saving associated with trainig and supporting fast jet aircrew and the money saved will be huge.

But the problem is can we be certain that you can eliminate the pilot from the airframe altogether? Remember we are only talking 30 years here. Can unmanned platforms totally replace manned platforms? If the answer to that is I’m not so sure then you cant eliminate life support infrastructure or the HUI.

 

[Bonza]

But the problem is can we be certain that you can eliminate the pilot from the airframe altogether? Remember we are only talking 30 years here. Can unmanned platforms totally replace manned platforms? If the answer to that is I’m not so sure then you cant eliminate life support infrastructure or the HUI.

"Only" 30 years is a hell of a long time though mate, when you consider the pace at which relevant technologies are developing. Consider the advances in robotics over the last three decades - then consider the exponential nature of technological advancement.

Out of curiosity and somewhat off-topic, have you read the book I mentioned in my previous post? It's a hell of a read for anyone interested in the role of technology in 21st century war.

edit: I take the point of your post though, if the answer isn't definite, the infrastructure has to stay. Hadn't thought about it that way.

 

[Scorpion82]

As for the question 'could Europe skip 5th-generation aircraft': no. Better to build a fifth-generation aircraft (i.e. a CAS/trainer replacement for the FutureHawk) before moving on to whatever a sixth-generation 'craft may be. Certainly our Indian cousins think so...!

But in contrast to that Indians, Europeans don't lack behind that much. Aircraft like the Eurofighter or Rafale are on a very similar technological level as the F-22. They are dealing with stealthy UAVs and some are involved in the F-35 as well so stealth technology is addressed as well.

 

[Palnatoke]

Naturally? I don't know. It's a matter of budget allocations not a matter of the technology or capability (at this point in time). The point is that it's 2010 and there isn't even a program directed at producing one. The US has one in serial production, another one in testing. Russia has one in testing. China has one under development. Everyone else is happy with either imports, or their 4.5th gen stuff.

The interesting countries in question, have just fielded 2-3 models amoung the world's most advanced fighter airplanes. These airplanes will serve for another 30 years. Technologically speaking 30 years, is "unforseeable future". It would be wierd to start a directed development project of a replacement now, if not because the true aim of such a project is to maintain future production cababilities and know-how rather than producing an explicit future airplane. A young engineer starting to day is retired or near retirement in 30 years, So you can't possibly need 30 years lead time in maintaining the all important human capital!

With a healthy commercial aero industry as well as the ongoing work on keeping the present platforms updated, I would say that these cababilities and the know-how can be preserved until the point in time where it's clear what should replace the present platforms, at that point you can ramp up the cabability to a very specialised one needed for jet fighters, from a pool of specialists who are in the field (via f.ex. commercial industry).

Also I much agree with a number of posters suggesting that in 30 years, robotics will probably have rendered the traditional human pilotted fighter obsolete.

 

[windscorpion]

I wouldn't be sure about manned fighters being dumped just yet.

True artificial intelligence is still a long way away, its a bit like nuclear fusion in that it always seems to be 20-30 years away. Now granted you may be able to create systems that can operate with some known parameters but as we know if the unexpected is going to happen it will happen in a war situation!

I think we will see a hybrid generation of manned fighters that can also operate unmanned before we go to true unmanned multirole fighters (7th gen perhaps).

 

[stoker]

But the problem is can we be certain that you can eliminate the pilot from the airframe altogether? Remember we are only talking 30 years here. Can unmanned platforms totally replace manned platforms? If the answer to that is I’m not so sure then you cant eliminate life support infrastructure or the HUI.

There is one small problem with un manned platforms, what happens when the 'enemy' jams your electronic data transfer between the aircraft (UAV) and the remote control base ( which may be based 100's of kilometers away, or even in another country).

You would have a highly lethal well armed 'blind/deaf' robot flying around uncontrolled, it would be a bit of an embarrassment if it attacked a civilian passanger plane?

Not a good way to make friends, while an UAV F-35 is a very practicle possible future weapons system, I think manned aircraft are going to be the norm for several decades to come.

I think Duncan Sands ? set the bench mark on predicting the future of manned aircraft.

 

[Bonza]

There is one small problem with un manned platforms, what happens when the 'enemy' jams your electronic data transfer between the aircraft (UAV) and the remote control base ( which may be based 100's of kilometers away, or even in another country).

You would have a highly lethal well armed 'blind/deaf' robot flying around uncontrolled, it would be a bit of an embarrassment if it attacked a civilian passanger plane?

What makes you think a jammed UCAV is going to start opening fire on random objects?

As far as I know at least one of the unmanned systems getting around at the moment is programmed to return to a predetermined point (ie "home base") if it loses the control signal. If I remember correctly this was a ground system (PackBot, maybe? I can't remember, I'll try to find the info again) but I would think advanced UCAVs would have a similar system, if not something more sophisticated.