6th Generation Fighter Meta Thread

originally posted by: CapsFreedom
Scramjet is the next generation aircraft engine. ... 6th gen will certainly use scramjet for hypersonic speed.

I am not so sure that is true. The UK Tempest is looking at the prospect of a "variable cycle engine" (whatever that is) as are the Americans from what I have read. Given that the engine will be the central to the new jets it will also be an area of huge investment and innovation.

a reply to: paraphi

They want some kind of dash speed, but not hypersonic. They aren't going to use scramjets on 6th Gen, because they want range and loiter time, neither of which you have with a scramjet. Scramjets aren't going to be the be all end all of engine tech, and aren't going to replace anything in the future. They'll always be a niche engine.

China bought Su-35 and reverse engineered 3D TVC. That's how China got it. China stole EOTS and DAS and DSI from LM. That's how J-20 got EOTS and DAS and DSI. China 6th gen will certainly have 3D TVC which was recently tested on a J-10B. Considering J-10 flew 1998, J-20 flew less than 13 years later in 2011, it is expected J-40 will have first flight in the mid 2020s.

www.thestar.com.my...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: paraphi

They want some kind of dash speed, but not hypersonic. They aren't going to use scramjets on 6th Gen, because they want range and loiter time, neither of which you have with a scramjet. Scramjets aren't going to be the be all end all of engine tech, and aren't going to replace anything in the future. They'll always be a niche engine.

6th gen uses turbofan for super cruise, scramjet for hypersonic dash to evade or escape BVR air to air missiles.

6th gen fighter jets have scramjet for hypersonic speed, directed laser anti missile system, 3D TVC, advanced autopilot that can maneuver the plane to evade missiles. As such, current BVR air to air missiles like AMRAAM, R-77, PL-12, MICA are largely ineffective against 6th gen fighter jets, with less than 1% probability of hit.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think there will be a significant spread here on what the 6th gen will look like.

What the Americans need is not what the Europeans need. The Europeans are largely going to need an aircraft to be used in, well, Europe. The US needs something to fight over the western pacific over some very long ranges. The Chinese might need something with the same sort of range and the Russians could use it, but for either, so long as they are merely trying to keep the Americans out, don't require the same obscene range.

While it is possible there could be a hypersonic 6th gen, I doubt that tech will be ready in time for something other than specialized platforms: the cost from maintenance alone on a new tech like that would run contrary to everything we are hearing from the NGAD project.

And that has been, for those not following so far, long range, deep magazines, a drone controller/mothership and, if ready in time, DEWs.

That's why I have been leaning strongly towards something B-58 sized. I actually, after mulling, think you can get what you need from something smaller with the improved ADVENT engines, but we're still talking a 50k lbs airframe, 70k lbs fuel and a 30k lbs payload, imo. That means you can fly from Guam, refuel over Manila and fight at and around Hong Kong. Your tankers are waaay out of reach of the J-20 even with a 500 km range hypersonic missile and puts you in friendly, shorter range fighter cover.

Whats the best airframes available to be highly manoeuvrable at very high speeds and altitudes currently

originally posted by: CapsFreedom
6th gen fighter jets have scramjet for hypersonic speed, directed laser anti missile system, 3D TVC, advanced autopilot that can maneuver the plane to evade missiles. As such, current BVR air to air missiles like AMRAAM, R-77, PL-12, MICA are largely ineffective against 6th gen fighter jets, with less than 1% probability of hit.

Where did you get that 1% from? Just curious.

a reply to: face23785

Thin air. There's no such thing as a nearly invulnerable aircraft, and there won't be until technology gets a lot farther ahead than it is now, or anything coming up.

There won't be scramjet engines in fighters you've been watching the film Stealth too much. They'll just burn way too much fuel and there's no stealthy tankers at this time to help with that. There's not a chance they'd send a KC135 or KC46 in with them as they'd just be huge targets. The speeds of 6th gen fighters will pretty much be the same as now.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

Thin air. There's no such thing as a nearly invulnerable aircraft, and there won't be until technology gets a lot farther ahead than it is now, or anything coming up.

That's kinda what I figured.

a reply to: Woody510

Given the importance of the engines, will that be a constraining factor in sixth generation? The US and British have advanced engine industries (P&W, GE and RR), with the French coming in with Safran. Apparently the Russians have always struggled with jet engines. The Chinese are (I guess) a bit of an unknown quantity unless they've already nicked the blueprints.

From discussion so far. Engines will need to deliver speed, altitude, range and efficiency. I guess low maintenance too.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: Woody510

The Chinese are (I guess) a bit of an unknown quantity unless they've already nicked the blueprints.

With the abysmal state of our cybersecurity as neglected by the last few administrations, is this really even a question?

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: Woody510

Given the importance of the engines, will that be a constraining factor in sixth generation? The US and British have advanced engine industries (P&W, GE and RR), with the French coming in with Safran. Apparently the Russians have always struggled with jet engines. The Chinese are (I guess) a bit of an unknown quantity unless they've already nicked the blueprints.

From discussion so far. Engines will need to deliver speed, altitude, range and efficiency. I guess low maintenance too.

MiG-31 is Mach 2.8. Doesn't seem like bad engines.

a reply to: tanJR

Not for long they used to literally destroy themselves doing it.

I think a next-gen aircraft should use an aerospike to get into space and loiter there or at least do a few low orbits. Then it should be capable of re-entry followed by completing a strike or safe landing.

Even if it only goes into orbit sparingly, it would be able to transition from lower to higher altitudes more easily than other aircraft.

What fuel is used in the future is also a consideration. 100% synthetic fuel should be the aim IMO.

a reply to: anzha

I've said it before and I'll say it again, as a starting poopskunk the for 6th gen, you could do far worse than a B-21 with conformal AESAs, something like an AAM-ified Patriot or Standard, carried by the dozen on a pair of rotary launchers, and God's own fire control system with something like a HELLADS descendant for point defense.

Speed and maneuverability are much less important here than stealth, range, and the ability to hit the other guy farther out than he has a chance of hitting you.

A more reasonable, less incendiary suggestion is that while the American 5th gen was basically a stealth-ified F-15 (speed, maneuverability, two engines) and a stealth-ified F/A-18 (a smaller, less athletic multirole grunt), the American 6th gen will likely resemble a stealth-ified F-14 (massive radar, massive missiles, massive airplane, moderate speed, mediocre maneuverability).