It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

6th Generation Fighter Meta Thread

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2019 @ 04:32 AM
link   
You don't want to walk the last part of your statement back a little bit?




posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Masisoar

No. There's a difference between remote command and remote operation.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

link< br />
Getting interesting now



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

Interested to see how the DEW developments rollover to the MDA.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 04:14 AM
link   
This s quite an interesting development, which may find its way into sixth generation in some form,on the basis that sixth generation will introduce novel technologies.


The new concept for aircraft control removes the conventional need for complex, mechanical moving parts used to move flaps to control the aircraft during flight. This could give greater control as well as reduce weight and maintenance costs, allowing for lighter, stealthier, faster and more efficient military and civil aircraft in the future.


BAE release



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Burn me once!

www.flightglobal.com...



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Naval Aviation doing it's best to become increasingly irrelevant... Starting to get hard to justify the cost of a CVBG already.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Future US Navy fighter will not be joint effort with USAF

“A penetrating fighter, the Navy doesn’t have to do that. So some of that inherent design of the aircraft it does drive costs and if you don’t need that for our mission area then you don’t necessarily want to pay for it,” she says, noting the shape of a highly stealthy penetrating fighter, presumably without a vertical stabliser, would be more expensive to develop. Instead, the USN would conduct penetrating airstrikes against an advanced adversary with long-range standoff missiles or the mission would be deferred to the USAF, says Knappenberger.

www.flightglobal.com...

at least someone has two working braincells



posted on May, 9 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

I wonder how much of a fleet size/operating cost reduction (personnel and infrastructure) you could get out of having a small UCAV-only carrier wing. Does it have a place in the future battlefield?



posted on May, 9 2019 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Masisoar

If you're looking at cost, just deploy an Air Force Wing to a permanent base in the AO.
I don't see the point in deploying an entire CSG with an miniscule Air Wing.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Not even in the Pacific as an expeditionary force?

I should probably mention a context of fielding more cost-effective UCAVs with proven technology, nothing state-of-the art. Along with a smaller compliment of escort vessels for protection. If the Pacific gets as busy as I think it will with the surge in Chinese naval production, a more flexible and readily deployable expeditionary force could have its advantages rather than risking a more massive CAW. I do see this as a possibility in the future since the 1st and 2nd island chains are well within striking distance. A smaller, more maneuverable force would probably be beneficial.

But what is considered proven technology/non-state of the art depends on the timeframe this would be implemented as it needs to be relative to 6th gen technology for it to be in this thread

edit on 5/10/2019 by Masisoar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Masisoar

You're making an argument about smaller carriers, not smaller carrier air wings. There is no point in reducing the size of the CAWs embarked on the current CVNs.

IMO smaller carriers have no benefits at all in a confrontation against a near peer.
Buying three smaller carriers for every super carrier sounds good on paper until you realize that you actually need to operate three hulls instead of one.
Unless your deploying them in a unified strike group you actually end up needing more escort vessels to defend less capable ships.
The idea smaller, more maneuverable forces doesn't fly against a near peer. Sending out individual Task Groups with cost-effective UCAVs and light escorts only makes it easier for the Chinese to effectively engage them.

No to mention that its is a useless thought exercise. The US is not moving away from supper carriers for at the very least the next decade. They have three Ford Class Carriers already in service or construction and an additional two on order. Even if they cancelled CVN-81 and CVN-82 and start building Americas instead, the fleet structure would change much at all until well into the 2030s.

If you want to build on the capability to strike inside the Chinese OODA loop surface combatants are the wrong tool for the job period. It's not the 1940s anymore, you can’t just rush in some light surface force and get out more or less unscathed after dealing some blows. You need to assume the Chinese will be able to close the loop and engage your naval task forces, so actually won't get away with distributing your firepower over multiple task forces operating independent of each other or something.
If you want to operate carrier groups within the reach of the Chinese at all, your layers of protection need to be airtight. I'm talking a dozen Aegis Baseline 9 capable vessels armed to teeth with the most advanced interceptors currently in the inventory. IE a third of the Pacific fleet just to protect the flight decks in one task group.
And event that will be inadequate as soon as true hypersonic weapons get introduced within the next decade or so.

The ugly truth is, going forward, carriers are actually the wrong tool to fight the Chinese in the Pacific in the 21st century. At least until they come up with a way to increase the effectiveness of missile defense by an order of magnitude at least. That’s not impossible, but deployable laser weapons to engage hypersonic weaponry aren’t a thing yet.
In the meantime, the US needs to accept the reality that Carriers are actually a second-tier tool in any fight against China. They are reduced to long range standoff strikes from well outside the Chinese anti access zone. Stealth or not, they actually don't have the legs and refueling capability to worry too much about penetrating. That will be up to the Air Force with the LRSB family of systems.
Hence why I actually like their new approach to 6th gen. They Navy needs a 6th Gen Hornet equivalent, not a navalized PCA.

And if the politicians had been smart about it ten years ago, they would have canned the F-35 and transitioned the manned air wing to pure Hornet fleet to keep the air wings a max strength with a stealthy UCAV as support. Would have been the perfect force structure a generation earlier than what they now looking at. But thats water under the bridge i guess.

edit on 11-5-2019 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

If your CVBG is reduced to stand-off engagements by relatively short-legged tactical aircraft, it offers zero advantages over strategic air. It ceases to be an offensive weapon. It is now a sea -control force (a very good one), but it is not an offensive force.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Not against that one near peer at least, its still perfectly adequate to walk over everyone else.

Tacair whether carrier borne or land based doesn't have any worthwhile advantages over strategic platforms. I've been saying that for the better part of fifteen years now.
If it were politically feasible, i'd transition the entire Air Force to strategic platforms. I'd rather have 500 B-1/B-2/B-21 than any combinbation of 2000 F-15/F-16/F-22/F-35 they're looking at today.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Mightmight, thank you for your thoughts and +1 to to RadioRobert too. I wouldn't expect a smaller carrier force to be conducting any operations within the denial area or striking the mainland so much as operating at the perimeter of the reach of the Chinese Navy to keep them contained or supporting engagements involving island chain hopping. The short legs of any type of manned/unmanned 6th gen carrier based platforms definitely don't offer much a strategic benefit if they do need to be far away from the fight to increase survivability, yes and I do believe that should be reserved for the Air Force.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Affordable


Some how I doubt that's on the minds of any Defense Contractor.

You want top shelf, you pay top shelf prices.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what the contractor wants, if the Pentagon sets a price and sticks to it.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

They can always just not bid...



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Hopefully this RCO blueprint for the B-21 becomes the way of the future. I really believe we can field some amazing platforms with proven technology and still maintain our edge. I'm super interested in keeping an eye on what China is planning for 6th gen.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Yeah, and do that often enough and it'll eventually bite them in the ass.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join