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

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Humanity will never know peace.

CobZZ , impossible to see a futur air dominance platform not able to go supersonic, if you want a subsonic flying wing just put aim-120 on a B-21 , supercruise si needed to fight the futur J-20 ,T-50 and others , in air / air combat at a time you need the cinematics performance of your Platform. And will be sure in the futur the stealth become less a superiority over enemy. I think more the PCA will be a big fighter like the FB-22 concept of the 90 s.

a reply to: darksidius

I'd go in a very different direction. They're emphasizing that it ISN'T a fighter in the traditional sense, and we need to latch on to that.

Let's hypothetically say that you took a B-21 and decided to play with it a little. It's as fast as a fighter is during any time other than a supersonic dash, but it doesn't have to go that quickly, ever. Being a whatever-th generation stealth aircaft, it makes the B-2 look like a B-52 in terms of RCS.

Furthermore, its IR signature is probably the most aggressively reduced of any manned aircraft that's flying. In a time when every flying anti-aircraft platform and its cousin has an advanced IRST, the importance of good IR suppression cannot be over-emphasized. There are murmurs that IR signature is the achilles heel of the F-35 and the F-22, and it's probably their greatest achilles heel in a WVR combat scenario against one of the Sukhoi's, if not a close BVR one, too. Since the chinese can't do better than Sukhoi copies themselves, that vulnerability is a pretty big one.

Now, back to that B-21. It has a weapons capacity on par with a B-58 or a B-47, with a large rotary launcher a la the B-2. On top of that, it has a pair of gigantic, unbroken leading edges that could allow you to mount a conformal low-POI AESA with enough power to make an AN/SPY-6 blush, assuming you could power the thing. Now, let's suppose that the USAF decides to work with Raytheon to develop an air-launched variant of the Patriot or Standard, and let's say that this modified B-21 can carry somewhere between one and two dozen of these massive, hypersonic, active-closing, over-the-horizon capable AAM's.

Now, it truly doesn't matter that this invisible bird can't dogfight, because it literally doesn't have to. You use it more like the flying AEGIS destroyer that it is, rather than as something we would traditionally call a "fighter". If you give it a HELLADS-based active anti-missile system or CIWS, then that's doubly true, as it can simply zap any missiles (or fighters) that come close enough to give it any grief. All the while, painting and killing targets that are hundreds of miles away, using its Naval-grade anti-aircraft weaponry. Add an anti-radiation function to the standards it's carrying, and now you have a massive HARM on steroids that can mission-kill an S400 emplacement from far enough away that the ruskies don't even see you.

Furthermore, networked data-linking means that this thing can play virtual wingman to F-35's from hundreds of miles away (mere seconds to a Standard, btw), by allowing the F-35 to identify targets and cue up missiles from this big PCA bird (just like the -B and the -C can do with a Burke or Ticon), allowing the active-homing ALSM's to be literal fire-and-forget weapons.

Such an aircraft would be as if not more expensive than a bomber, per-capita, but could equal if not beat a half-dozen F-35's in terms of its ability to neutralize anti-aircraft threats. It would be an utterly and revolutionary paradigm-shifting aircraft. From how the USAF is talking about PCA, it's pretty clear that they see a fair amount of merit in this concept, too.

a reply to: darksidius

Maybe, but the series of articles the OP posted seemed to challenge the idea that PCA will simply be what we today consider a "fighter" aircraft. But I concede a potentially tailless version, potentially unmanned, aircraft that is otherwise similar to the F-22 is also likely. The Boeing concept images for their "6th generation fighter" seem to indicate this.

(I put 6th generation in quotes, because mostly it just looks like a 5th generation aircraft with better all-aspect stealth).

I would also argue that if a fighter is flying deep into an A2/AD zone, then it will be essentially surrounded by sensors and missile launchers. And the adversary can always build a bigger missile to engage faster targets. That's why I think all-aspect stealth is so important.

I therefore update my prediction to be possibly supercruising.

a reply to: Barnalby

What you have just suggest is the most bad-ass concept I've heard in a while - it reminds me of Arsenal Plane. My idea was similar but was more of a smaller aircraft with shorter ranged missiles, not a flying AEGIS.

An issue is that the radar when radiating increases the probability of detection, so perhaps such an aircraft will have to operate in conjunction with off-board sensors as well - we are talking about a system of systems after all. OR, and I have no idea if this is possible, would it be possible to triangulate an enemy aircrafts position as well, using T/R AESA modules from near the ends of each wing (ala binocular vision) while detecting enemy fighter radar?

Also with such a large radar, it doesn't necessarily have to be X-Band either...

Now, it truly doesn't matter that this invisible bird can't dogfight, because it literally doesn't have to. You use it more like the flying AEGIS destroyer that it is, rather than as something we would traditionally call a "fighter". If you give it a HELLADS-based active anti-missile system or CIWS,

What about this:

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) has invited proposals for a miniature self-defense munition concept study, seeking to develop a concept for a weapon to be dispensed from a fighter jet, hone in on an incoming missile and destroy it with a direct hit.

www.flightglobal.com...

We should take a bet on what PCA will look like. Winner takes all.

I'll be getting old by 2030...

originally posted by: nwtrucker

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.

Unless the joystick is connected via quantum entanglement,and can get signals instantly.....>>

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Humanity will never know peace.

Yeah we will one day. extinction.

a reply to: C0bzz

As for probability of intercept, there's been enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that we can make a stealthy radar that still has the power/resolution to do what the J-STARS does (going all the way back to Tacit Blue). I'd imagine that concept and suite of technologies has evolved somewhat since then.

If that's the case, then it seems we cracked the low-POI radar nut a long, long time ago.

For anti air Platform there is still a need for speed, to intercept enemy flying in supercruise mode, I think J-20 or Pak Fa will do that. If the stealth is still an advantage in futur , the speed will surely be too. A air battle station with Patriot style missile , need to go on the battle quickly so it need speed . I agree a Very large Platform with laser weapon or anti missile and anti aircraft missile able to destroy everything in air could be sexy too But I bet we will see a more classical stealth fighter in the PCA , may be a super 2 engine F-35. I m confident that the PCA will be amazing.

a reply to: darksidius

Supercruising (a mere 300-400 knots more than cruise speed for a B-1) is utterly irrelevant when the missile you're launching closes at Mach 10, like the Standard does.

6th generation fighters will do away with the joystick and come standard with mouse and keyboard.

a reply to: Barnalby

Faster the speed the harder it is to correct for sudden drastic changes in flightpath.

a reply to: nwtrucker

So to put closure on the F-22, to lessen that 'gap', upgrades to the existing F-22 fleet is likely all we are going to see. It's the degree of those upgrades, I'd guess, that are in question. Still almost half the 22s aren't combat coded, could we see full conversions to F-35 and post F-35 levels, rather than some form of rerun?

So

a reply to: C0bzz


Good you bring up missiles. Some have been working hard for a good while to make the missile that cant be escaped.

a reply to: yuppa

Drastic changes in direction at the kinds of speeds a 4th or 5th gen fighter travels at are nothing to something that can score kinetic kills on satellites and ballistic missiles.

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: yuppa

Drastic changes in direction at the kinds of speeds a 4th or 5th gen fighter travels at are nothing to something that can score kinetic kills on satellites and ballistic missiles.

Youre not going to hit a f-22 with a SM3 or Ballistic missile are you? In a dogfight the thrust vectoring in th ehands of a skilled pilot can out manuver a missile if need be.

The faster you are the harder to hit your target if it goes evasive and does not maintain a predictable trajectory.

6th generation fighters will do away with the joystick and come standard with mouse and keyboard.

And hopefully not the Blue Screen of death..

a reply to: buddah6

Remove Man from the equation, and you remove the Human factor.

6th gen fighters will probobly be drones utilizing some form of autonomous/semi autonomous artificial intelligence thus be able to perform and maneuver rather more eloquently than there Human equivalents could ever hope to, especially if it takes until 2045 to enter service by which time i imagine our AI will be rather more refined.

originally posted by: Blackfinger

6th generation fighters will do away with the joystick and come standard with mouse and keyboard.

And hopefully not the Blue Screen of death..

This is one of the most contested subjects on flight sim forums and You would think the military would have caught on.