Next 6-Gen Fighter?

[Quiller]

The National Security Executive (NSX) thinktank has assembled a working group to define features for America's FX6 Generation fighter. The idea is... while UAV's are moving forward in sophistication, some question remains as to their reliability and tactical presentation in the near term, being the next 10 to 20 years.

In a half-century of jet air combat, it seems no human-flown jet has suffered the sort of uplink/downlink data issues that UAV's still suffer from. Witness the loss of the RQ170 over Iran. Furthermore... although tremendous strides are being made in "artificial intelligence" it still remains... well, artificial. Humans still overshadow software with the ability to make choices based on experience and training, and improvise tactics at will. Machines still cannot do this yet. And let's face it... there is something to be said for a pilot's awareness of his plane and intuition. So the idea is America needs to work on R&D for a next-Gen MANNED fighter.

NSX has begun to identify some specific aspects a 6th Gen fighter should have. Some of these are pretty generic at this point: stealth coatings that are far easier and less expensive to maintain once applied, greater agility, perhaps greater speed and range. Then some are more esoteric: wrapping avionics and sensors in electromagnetic burst pulse resistant embedded netting.

So... what specific qualities should a MANNED 6th Gen fighter include?

 

[Quiller]

Incidentally, the reason for the E-pulse resistant netting is because deployment of E-burst standoff munitions by US fighter aircraft and US Navy ships may figure prominently in future strikes to degrade larger footprints of anti-aircraft missile batteries and other C3 assets of a targeted enemy. The thought is not only does the fighter aircraft need to defend itself against enemy E-pulse weapons, but protect itself from E-pulse munitions it launches itself.

For example: use of electromagnetic pulse munitions against a potential enemy could more rapidly and permanently degrade its C3 and defensive missile and aircraft assets than, say, a cruise missile striking a single radar installation or anti-aircraft missile battery. The footprint of the E-pulse that would fry electronics would be significantly larger than the blast effects of JDAMS or cruise missiles.

 

[boomerdl]

Incidentally, the reason for the E-pulse resistant netting is because deployment of E-burst standoff munitions by US fighter aircraft and US Navy ships may figure prominently in future strikes to degrade larger footprints of anti-aircraft missile batteries and other C3 assets of a targeted enemy. The thought is not only does the fighter aircraft need to defend itself against enemy E-pulse weapons, but protect itself from E-pulse munitions it launches itself.

For example: use of electromagnetic pulse munitions against a potential enemy could more rapidly and permanently degrade its C3 and defensive missile and aircraft assets than, say, a cruise missile striking a single radar installation or anti-aircraft missile battery. The footprint of the E-pulse that would fry electronics would be significantly larger than the blast effects of JDAMS or cruise missiles.

Would this be pure speculation at this juncture? What kind of qualitative or quantitative data and/or evidence that a 6th generation aircraft is in the plans? What type of propulsion system and type of fuel is forecast? Any of the electrical and/or electronic systems quantum leap above current 5th generation aircraft like the F22? Would this 6th general aircraft totally invisible to current or future radar or any other form of detection system? Who knows at this time. Any information if the skunk works organization working on this aircraft? If anyone in this forum in the know, then they could be in violation of our national security system?

 

[gf0012-aust]

What kind of qualitative or quantitative data and/or evidence that a 6th generation aircraft is in the plans?

There is mention of 6th gen aircraft in some of the 4I's air force discussion papers.

none of that material is in the public domain that I know of

the material discussed in the open domain is pure speculation and none of it reflects material that's been flagged in internal systems

so you're right re public domain discussions - they're pure speculation

 

[GermanHerman]

Would this be pure speculation at this juncture? What kind of qualitative or quantitative data and/or evidence that a 6th generation aircraft is in the plans? What type of propulsion system and type of fuel is forecast? Any of the electrical and/or electronic systems quantum leap above current 5th generation aircraft like the F22? Would this 6th general aircraft totally invisible to current or future radar or any other form of detection system? Who knows at this time. Any information if the skunk works organization working on this aircraft? If anyone in this forum in the know, then they could be in violation of our national security system?

I wonder if, and if so: what kind of concepts are there to avoid detection by passiv radar systems besides the not very discreet option of jamming? The concept behind PR always appeard to me as beeing quite neat, especially when we put into context how far the computer technology and the use of electronic devises has increased. I'm sure someone around here is able to give me a little insight, after all the question seems to be topic related.

Thanks.

 

[colay]

The AF issued a Request For Information to industry a couple of years back to get a feel of where the technology is at.. The Navy followed suit earlier this year with a RFI of it's own. Both are initially projecting availability of their new aircraft in the 2030 timeframe.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...0c9c983f85e7952c2adc426b189&tab=core&_cview=1

Navy FA-XX_RFI[1] | Scribd

 

[RobWilliams]

Wow. You don't have a better word or advice instead of "Post Whoring"? I thought this is an educated and/or professional website. Thanking somebody for posting an really good link is not allowed? I don't I want to be associated with such professional people (A**H***s)!

With language and an attitude like that, i highly doubt professionals would want you to be associated with them either. The forum rules are fair and easy to understand, I highly suspect that you violated rule 2. Not saying that's 100% why as i didn't read your post but it's the one that constitues 'post whoring' the most i think. So please do calm down, we're all nice people here, so in future could you not get so worked up over something so trivial as getting a post removed?

http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

All the images i've seen of 'potential 6th gen fighters' look pretty nice, I can't remember where I read this but there was a discussion on just what would make the 6th gen aircraft a generational leap rather than a performance 'upgrade' for a 5th and the reply was something along the lines of that the aircraft would use new avionics, weapons, communication systems (even mention of a 'self healing fuselage? ) but they hadn't got round to actually designing any of those things.

EDIT: found the link, it was a 'FlightGlobal' article quoting someone from LM

"Simply removing the pilot from an aircraft or introducing incremental improvements in signature and range does not constitute a generational leap in capability," Lockheed said in response to Flightglobal's questions.

"These improvements are already being looked att for our fifth generation fighters," the company added.

Instead, possible technologies for a next-generation fighter should include "greatly increased speed", more range and new features like self-healing structures and multi-spectral stealth, the company said.

Such capabilities must be supported by new breakthroughs in propulsion, materials, power generation and weapons, Lockheed said, adding some of these are "yet to be fully imagined".

Lockheed reveals bold technology plans with 6th-gen fighter concept

I just love the whole "yeah it needs all these things, but we don't even know how they would work yet so " attitude.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Wow. You don't have a better word or advice instead of "Post Whoring"? I thought this is an educated and/or professional website. Thanking somebody for posting an really good link is not allowed? I don't I want to be associated with such professional people (A**H***s)!

I have not seen the original post as I haven't done a forensic

however, miy 2 cents worth is pause, have a look at the forum rules and read the intent of those rules, where people post source/links we do expect running or contributing comment

OPPSG is just doing his job, and if he hadn't picked it up, then one of the other Mods probably would have. If you have an issue then report the post and provide detailed comment as to why you're aggrieved

having a drive by crack after a Mod post is not the way to do it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

EDIT: found the link, it was a 'FlightGlobal' article quoting someone from LM

Lockheed reveals bold technology plans with 6th-gen fighter concept

I just love the whole "yeah it needs all these things, but we don't even know how they would work yet so " attitude.

None of the material I've seen (and that does make it hard to use in here as they've not been public domain) don't discuss any of the things in the FG article.

the concepts have been around greater ISR roles, battlespace management issues, weapons hand off capability, future weapons AI and integration etc.....

makes it hard to discuss as not open source as can't be specific, but my 2 cents for what its worth

 

[gf0012-aust]

The AF issued a Request For Information to industry a couple of years back to get a feel of where the technology is at.. The Navy followed suit earlier this year with a RFI of it's own. Both are initially projecting availability of their new aircraft in the 2030 timeframe.

Some of the 2025-2030 force constructs include the capacity to manage hives of UAS as well as weapons hives.

The issue is how far UAS develop as its gets closer to 2020-2025 as the C4-C5 role could well be picked up by UAS controllers rather than location based manned aircraft....

In fact some of the UAS management is already going to be picked up by other manned assets - well before the 5th gen fighterss go "mass" mainsttream 2025

 

[Gremlin29]

Some of the 2025-2030 force constructs include the capacity to manage hives of UAS as well as weapons hives.

The issue is how far UAS develop as its gets closer to 2020-2025 as the C4-C5 role could well be picked up by UAS controllers rather than location based manned aircraft....

In fact some of the UAS management is already going to be picked up by other manned assets - well before the 5th gen fighterss go "mass" mainsttream 2025

Longbow Block III for instance is already scheduled for successive UAV interface in the production schedule. Once fully integrated, Block III's will have level 5 control (payload and airframe). Those are going to be some busy pilots! :dance2:dance2This is, the wave of the future.