The technological gap between "5th Gen. fighters and 6th Gen. is 35 years!

This link is via the F-16.net site and I thought it should be shared in the event it's 'pulled' due to vested interests.

The author and the collaborative contributors looks to be about as expert as it gets. It includes about 1500 various industry experts covering every imaginable scenario for a sixth gen and it requirements.

The salient points I would highlight is the fact of the sheer cost and likely operational date of 2040!

My conclusion is some form of 5.5 Gen platform is required. Be it F-22 or F-23. Perhaps even a whole new design using existing technologies rather than postulated, future tech.

warontherocks.com...

Thoughts?

a reply to: nwtrucker

In my time the F-16 and F-15 were the most advanced aircraft. Now the F-22 and F-35 which possess incrementally more electronic and maneuverability than fighters of my time.

I have spoken to several F-16 pilots that said that we are on the edge of human performance. My next question is how does the new Gen 6 planes get around the human factor? We can build hugely superior planes but if it kills the pilot what is its' usefulness. They said that 9 g's is about the limit and is painful at those loads.

The only big improvements in the future is electronic. The primary thing is the ability to fight BVR and over the horizon. Next, I think, is electronic counter measures...hiding in plain site.

At the moment, we are looking at a pilot shortage because they don't want to fly drones. Reduced flight time for the pilots still flying airplanes due to budget cuts are jeopardizing proficiency. My point is, that next gen fighters couldn't be used to their maximum effect if you have low time pilots.

a reply to: buddah6


That way beyond my understanding. I recall one article where the sixth Gen. could be capable of both scenarios, pilot and pilotless. Is there a distinction between pilotless and a drone?
Computer controlled vs 'joy-stick'?

The 'gap' is my issue. Assuming the numbers in this article are accurate. improving the current F-22s and 35s seems almost mandatory before these sixth gens arrive. No matter how they are configured.

There's just too much that is likely to occur before 2040 or the point where pilots are obsolete. Hopefully, we're the first ones to get there, but until then? Add everything that we can for the 'drivers'.

Lets just say it's taking more time to build something better due to the complexity needed,

I'm sure someone like Zaph will know the subtle details even if he can't say them.

If people are still flying b52 buffs after all these years you can tell that while it might take a awhile to get the thing sorted you at least have something to cover the problems.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Joy stick has latency. Would be a huge failure. You need true autonomous, or pilots that are close enough to avoid latency.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: nwtrucker

Joy stick has latency. Would be a huge failure. You need true autonomous, or pilots that are close enough to avoid latency.

That makes complete sense. It would be even slower than a pilot, in the sense that the 'jockey' would have to interpret via cameras and his OODA loop would be messed up.

a reply to: nwtrucker

"Thoughts?" You ask for....
We already got 6th Gen in another package.

From my view of the black triangle that I and about twenty other people viewed moving--not flying--low, slow and silently over Laramie in June of 1998 is that the future is here and has been for awhile, and whether a gigantic fighter or that proposed "arsenal ship," we need it out of the black programs. View the triangles as a true leap entirely out of generations of AIRcraft.

I'll venture to suggest that every top-of-the-line bell and whistle that the F-35 will every have is already on board those delta monsters, perhaps actually trimmed down to fit the jet, such as the helmets.

a reply to: Aliensun


Do you believe the 'triangles' are fighters? Unless, of course, they
pulled 1500, or so, experts as a smoke screen.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

. There will be no fighters, bombers or even aircraft carriers. The modern "carrier" will be the "arsenal ships," a true battleship of the air, massive and powered by mass -cancelling physics. Don't ask where that brand of physics came from. Uncle yet doesn't want to come clean on UFOs.

6th generations will be drone swarms. possibly with a pilot craft in the center. Dog fighting between human craft will be over in 6th gen.

drone swarms really put a hamper on missle tech as they take one for the team.

7th gen lasers on turrets. dogfighting pointless.


As for big triangle ship tech. When can I see it?

a reply to: nwtrucker

I really like the structured thinking in that article. Fantastic. It starts at the very high level, then dives into the lower levels and starts discussing various solutions.

Don't forget the rest of the series.

warontherocks.com...

Also from part 4:

We will require fresh thinking to control the skies of the future. Gaining and maintaining air superiority in 2030 will require new concepts of operation. It will require a rejection of platform-based thinking that yearns for a “silver bullet” solution. And it will require airmen and joint leaders able to apply operational art across domains. While these intellectual foundations are certainly the most critical aspects of success in 2030, it is also true that concepts of operation dependent on outdated technology will fail. Any family of capabilities able to solve the 2030 problem will ultimately be comprised of platforms across all domains and from all services. If airmen and joint leaders in 2030 lack key capabilities, it will not matter how skilled they are in warfighting or operational art. The most brilliant commander today, equipped only with the technologies of yesterday, is doomed to fail in combat.

(snip)

The other word we avoided in the discussion of PCA was “fighter.” While to some this is sacrilege, the rationale is sound. When we hear the word “car,” most people envision a four-wheeled enclosed vehicle, typically propelled by an internal combustion engine with a range of 200 to 400 miles and top speeds of around 120 to 150 miles per hour. We all possess mental models that define a car in that way. The same is true of “fighter.” In the modern context, most people have a mental model of a short-range, highly maneuverable, supersonic, manned aircraft, typically armed with a limited number of missiles and a gun. A future PCA may not fit this model. Part III of this series highlighted the importance of increased range. Payload is also important, as increasing magazine depth allows for greater persistence and improved lethality. Maneuverability and speed will be important, too, but may not fit our traditional definition of a fighter, either. In the end, I fully expect we will call PCA a fighter and give it an F-designation. But we need to be willing to challenge our assumptions and expand our thinking about how we balance the tradespace of any platform in the air superiority family of capabilities.

warontherocks.com...

a reply to: C0bzz


It's a little tough for me. I can track with the overviews of the concepts, but when it gets into the details I'm left in the dust.


That's probably why I stressed the 'gap' solution, now that I think about it. The rest? A little bit like Scott Card's "Enders Game".

a reply to: C0bzz


P.S. So much for my F-22 fixation. Relegated to the P-51 class.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

It means that a system-of-systems approach is needed across all domains - air, space, sea, cyber, and electronic warfare, without necessarily a focus on one specific platform, to operate within and destroy A2/AD.

The specific platforms that are hinted at seem to be:
- RQ-180 (air)
- B-21 (air)
- X-37 (space)
- PCA (air)

Here is my guess at what PCA will be. It won't "replace" the F-22. It won't try to do what the F-22 does in the way the F-22 does at all. It will be a completely different concept. Thus, it won't replace the F-22 at all. When the F-22 retires either a different fighter will replace it or it won't be replaced, just like when the A-10 retires it won't be directly replaced.

Anyways, my guess:

- Flying Wing that is extremely stealthy in all aspects, including IR. Most likely subsonic. Stealth techniques to be similar to the B-21.
- Optionally manned or perhaps operating as a group of aircraft with only one pilot. When unmanned, full autonomous capability will eventually be possible.
- Significantly increased range over existing platforms via large fuel fraction and efficient design, at least 1300 nm combat radius.
- Initially powered by one or two GE F414 or single P&W F135, probably non-afterburning, possibly to be replaced by a variable cycle engine in the late 2020's after such an engine is already fielded most likely in the F-35.
- Limited maneuverability, at least when compared with the F-22 or F-35.
- Initially with avionics similar in capabilities to block 2 Super Hornet or a much simplified version of the F-35, but a stealthy datalink like MADL is a must. Eventually the antennas will be upgraded with next generation semiconductors (GaN instead of GaAs). Perhaps a version could be created with a big AESA in the leading edge of the wing for penetrating electronic warfare and cyber capabilities (I suspect we will have to wait for Next Generation Jammer for this to come to full fruition).
- Eventually, deep magazine with next generation air-to-air missiles. These will be smaller missiles similar to CUDA or SACM that are likely hit-to-kill with multi-mode seekers. Perhaps an ability to drop 2x1,000 lb JDAMs but I think this is less likely.
- Possible DIRCM, but deep in A2/AD territory if you get fired at then you're probably dead anyway, so probably not.
- Able to be AAR refuelled.

Note that most of what I described could be done with existing technology or takes aspects from other programs.

This part caught my eye:

Done correctly with consistent funding and focus, parallel development can significantly reduce the technical risk found in any program. The F-117 is a good example of this technique in action. Effort on stealth technology had progressed in one line of development, advanced flight controls in another, and various other subcomponents came from yet others. Once the technology was mature across all of the required systems, it was brought together into the F-117 program. This allowed the Air Force to more easily manage the risk. As technical risk had been decreased outside the program, what remained was integration risk. While non-trivial, the program brought no unnecessary risks into integration by using mature and in some cases fielded subcomponents.

Third, the Air Force should manage integration risk. Again, this is not a trivial task on a complex weapons system. However, prototyping and experimentation provide an elegant solution. The F-117 did this correctly by building an essentially fieldable prototype before entering its limited production run. More recently, the F-22 program began with a flyoff between the YF-22 and YF-23 prototypes. In truth, these aircraft were mere technology demonstrators rather than true prototypes, similar to the X-planes developed at the outset of the F-35 program. They did not contain all of the systems and sub-systems the final versions of their planes would need. For prototyping to truly work, we must move beyond the technology demonstrators these program used, and instead truly integrate the subsystems onto the capability we are trying to field. Only then can we evaluate whether or not it does what we need it to do.

warontherocks.com...

fieldable prototype you say?

a reply to: C0bzz

That's an eye opener!

I can't speak on the FY-23, but so much was left off the YF-22- and STILL is- that it makes total sense to call them technology demonstrators. Not unlike Zaphod labelling the latest Japanese effort a 'demonstrator'.

Although another thought just hit. As the article states, the technology streams were already developed independently for the 117. A far easier task to merge them, than the tasks that faced both MD and LM. Those technologies weren't fully developed, in a lot of instances, and the further cost of turning both into 'prototypes' would have been blinding.

A similar barrier would likely face the sixth Gen. as it's cost....wow.

a reply to: C0bzz


Oh! I think I get it now. The initial development would be with extant technologies. Already developed. As the 5th Gens. were intended, upgrades at a later date to the more 'postulated technologies'.

That cuts the prohibitive costs of prototype development with unproven/developed performance demands and their technologies.

A little less 'Buck Rogers' but with the intent and capacity to incorporate it. OK. The penny dropped...

Actually I just went food shopping and I think my guesses were way off. Oh well. I have no idea what it will be.

a reply to: C0bzz


Of course.

a reply to: nwtrucker

if you gents can take the intentionally vague wording of the quoted words of that report and slip the word "triangle" or even "UFO" in there as a concrete representation of what is being alluded to, then you can begin to get the big picture. That piece is telling you exactly about the kinds of ships, their capabilities and, most importantly, the required changes in the whole philosophy of warfare, not just aerial warfare, is coming into existence right now, not down the pike in 2030+. To think in terms of wings and jet engines is the horse and buggy days of aviation. Hang up the goggles and scarf. As the selected parts of the report plainly warns, the F-35 is your father's Oldsmobile.

Pay attention to UFO and triangle sighting reports. You might just have your sensibilities jarred.

Piloted aircraft are slowly but surely becoming irrelevant.

These latest aircraft are likely the last that will be directly controlled by humans.

Remember that the military have been putting massive amounts of money into large drone aircraft since world war 2.