6th Generation Fighter Meta Thread

originally posted by: Borys
a reply to: anzha

I guess exceptional dogfighting makes sense if you have a limited angular perspective with which to track/launch weapons. But with full 360 degree sensors (on or off platform) and equivalent weapons launch ability, then it is less so. Still useful to dodge missiles, but with appropriate laser (maybe neutral particle beams too? ) tech, you may be able to make life painful for missiles. Guess it makes sense to prioritise speed and multi-spectrum stealth.

I have another broad idea about necessary 6th generation tech: solving previously contradictory engineering problems. Right now, you can get stealth, but the materials that give it to the airframe fail at high speed with aerodynamic heating. The magic will be finding a material that is robust and low maintenance, very effective at minimising radar returns, light in weight, has excellent mechanical properties that are maintained even at very high temperatures and is cheap.

www.youtube.com...

If you get to high enough speeds, the air in front of you is very hot and can get ionized (c.f. space capsule & ICBM re-entry). Very hot = extremely visible on IR from a long way away (not to mention the huge combustion engines), you can see a ICBM re-entry very brightly (but only for a very short time!) a long way away, and ionized means it's a big fat radar return. This is the air, not the craft. And in those conditions your own sensors are blinded.

Unless you invent nongravitational sci-fi hyperdrive, it's either out of the atmosphere, or not that fast to be stealthy.

My guess is that 6th generation might be more about Zerg rush drone swarms, when your own radar return isn't any different than 50 other drones (some of which are ECM fakes, but some aren't). Rather than being fully undetectable, be unidentifiable or undistinguishable.

a reply to: anzha

Seems like the NGAD might have the size/capacity of a Chinese J-20 and a mission profile like the F-14? going back to the future of a heavy very long range interceptor, being able to hurl big missiles from a long distance? Except these missiles would be threats against fighters and not just bombers, very plausible with modern tech.

Knocking an opponent on the head while not knowing where it came from is the most desirable thing in Air Combat.

a reply to: mbkennel

Another challenge then: conversion of IR energy into electrical energy :-). With the speeds I was thinking of, it would be supercruise of around Mach 3-4, rather than orbital velocities. Still, this is a real problem engineering wise, indeed physics wise. Still, if this UAP report is to be accepted, it appears some type of solution to this and many other "impossible" engineering challenges may have been developed by someone/something.

Or it could be all bunk and we're stuck with good old chemical thrust to get us around. Jury's still out for now.

The drone swarms make sense. If all of them can be stealthy, then it's a winner. One of the smartest thing I ever heard a government official say was that it's perfectly fine to lose a $2 million dollar drone if the adversary has to fire 10 $2 million dollar missiles for a 50% kill probability.

a reply to: mbkennel

Imnsho, ngads requirements need a much larger aircraft than the J-20. We are talking F-111 size at a minimum, possibly up to B-58. The range needed to operate in the Pacific is enormous, doubly so with the need to keep tankers as far back as possible since everyone is developing tanker killer missiles: very fast, very long range.

Additionally, everyone is saying a far deeper magazine is needed. An aircraft fighting in the pac cannot quickly return to base and rearm. Even at hypersonic speeds Guam to hong kong and back isn't a short trip and no one is suggesting hypersonic speed for ngad. An ngad will need to stay in the fight for far, far longer as a result. That means a lot more ordnance.

Finally, it sounds like they are considering two ngad birds with a lot of commonality. One with more fuel and range foe the pac. One with shorter legs but probably more punch for europe. Or maybe there is an aircraft section that would be mostly fuel they simply not include for the european theater aircraft.

TBD. However, probably a much bigger bird than we've seen in a while as a fighter.

a reply to: Borys

NGAD will not be hypersonic, or even high supersonic. You want fast, but you don't want specialized fuel. Into Mach 3-4, you're getting into JP7 type fuels, which means you need KC-135Ts specifically for those aircraft, instead of being able to use all your tankers for whoever needs fuel.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Will it really be tailless?

a reply to: E92M3

That's the rumor. OTOH, many people thought the B-21 was going to be a cranked kite instead of a regular flying wing.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: mbkennel

Imnsho, ngads requirements need a much larger aircraft than the J-20. We are talking F-111 size at a minimum, possibly up to B-58. The range needed to operate in the Pacific is enormous, doubly so with the need to keep tankers as far back as possible since everyone is developing tanker killer missiles: very fast, very long range.

OK, how would this NGADS be different from a B-21 with particular mission systems?

Or is it a B-21?

a reply to: mbkennel

The same way the F-22 and F-35 have mission overlap, but are totally different. The B-21 is a bomber that might be able to fire missiles. NGAD will be an air dominance platform that will be capable of limited ground attack.

a reply to: mbkennel

OK, how would this NGADS be different from a B-21 with particular mission systems?

It will probably be smaller than the B-21. The B-21 will not be as heavy as the B-2, iirc, but I think will be heavier than 250k lbs. The upper end of the NGAD would probably be around 125k lbs +/- about 30k lbs.

NGAD is expected to cost no more than 40% of a B-21 last I heard. if the digital manufacturing comes through, it ought to be cheaper still.

so, for every two B-21s you get at least 5 NGADs.

The Japanese (in Japanese, just a warning) have stated they will develop their own fighter engine for their F-X program and they will use British (rolls Royce, I assume) help:

www.asahi.com...

Mitsubishi would be a good starting point..

Hmmm. Is NGAD the /only/ es-eries?

breakingdefense.com...

I can see them sharing Design programs but Capitalism will probably stop them from sharing airframe information..Unless the Gov is spreading the love...

www.ruaviation.com...

NGAD will be a carrier based aircraft?.

a reply to: drwire

F/A-XX will be.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This is where some huge strategic/technical questions arise: is the support infrastructure of previous generations (fuel, tankers, runways, maintenance facilities etc) going to be the cost constraining factor of the NGAD? Has technology advanced enough to give us capabilities that in the past would have forced engineering compromises (i.e. very high speed flight mean stealth is limited due to IR signatures and plane skins that can't be stealthy and deal with aerodynamic friction)? How much money can we spend? Can we live with a smaller number of very high performance aircraft or is a larger number of slightly less amazing aircraft better?

Over the past few years, we have heard about variable cycle and the SABRE engine, which offer amazing potential, but technological maturity is (at least publicly) some way off. And whilst not discussed here, there have been some interesting breakthroughs with materials science, which could allow for some interesting properties for aircraft that previously were not possible in combination. Again, it comes down to purse strings and time: how long will the technology take to mature to production feasible status (assuming it can - the 1980s are littered with billions of dollars of unsuccessful programs that were too ambitious too soon).

It's going to be amazing to watch - not just what plane emerges, what does 6th generation actually mean. How much of a distance will there be between the 5th generation in terms of capability? Does the B-21 Raider give us some idea of what 6th generation thinking involves, or is 6th generation truly clean sheet based on technologies which are not yet developed but realistically (we hope!) less than 10 years away?

a reply to: Borys

ADVENT moved the adaptive cycle engine to almost ready to drop in. According to GE, shortly before the B-21 was awarded, they had an ADVENT engine ready to drop in to a bomber sized platform. They're building a second XA100 for testing on an F-35 sized platform. If the F-XX falls between the two, the existing engine that's supposed to be ready should be able to fit it.