USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

Triton said:
Does anyone know if there might be an export ban on NGAD (F/A-XX F-X) or an export-only version of the fighters? It will be interesting to see how decisions concerning F/A-XX and F-X will affect the Mitsubishi F-3.
Click to expand...
Too early to have been decided. Could be locked down like F-22, could be international partners like JSF. Personally, I'd be surprised if there were an outright ban on exporting both, the manufacturers are going to pressure the DoD and Congress pretty hard to let them sell to allies.
 
Things have changed since the F-22, export decision. Japan faces 2 stealthy fighters from China, South Korea has the F-35 and is developing another 5th generation fighter of its own. There is no reason not to opt for a co-development of at least one next generation jet given the amount of money the Japanese can contribute to the program.
 
"Defining Sixth-Generation Fighters"
—John A. Tirpak7/30/2014

Source:
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/July%202014/July%2030%202014/Defining-Sixth-Generation-Fighters.aspx

The Air Force is working on a capability to succeed the F-22, but it is still defining what it might be. Speaking during an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast event in Arlington, Va., ACC chief Gen. Mike Hostage said he “told the people working on it, ‘don’t think in terms of a platform.’” In other words, the next fighter might not be an airplane, but a set of technologies that could be stand-alone or mounted on existing aircraft. Hostage said “it’s okay with me” if the next air superiority system is not a manned fighter. “It will happen someday” that a ground-based operator will have all the situation awareness needed to fly a fighter remotely, he said. Directed-energy weapons are among the attributes a sixth-gen system is likely to have, particularly because they offer a nearly unlimited magazine of shots, he noted. Hostage said his only frustration with the F-22—besides the small size of the fleet—is that while it can penetrate deeply into denied airspace, “it can only kill eight bad guys” when it gets there. Hostage hinted at “amazing” technologies that might be back-fitted on legacy, fourth-gen aircraft that could make them relevant for decades, but he declined to name them. He wants to make it costly for an enemy to defend against offensive capabilities “that are cheap to us.”
Click to expand...
 
The One hour+ session with Gen Hostage is now available (audio)

Topics discussed : Readiness vs modernization, Sequester, Future fighters, LRS-B, F-35EW and NGJ, Future Air to Air weaponry, 4th to 5th generation etc


http://www.afa.org/events/afaafbreakfastprogram
 
Triton said:
"Defining Sixth-Generation Fighters"
—John A. Tirpak7/30/2014

Source:
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/July%202014/July%2030%202014/Defining-Sixth-Generation-Fighters.aspx

The Air Force is working on a capability to succeed the F-22, but it is still defining what it might be. Speaking during an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast event in Arlington, Va., ACC chief Gen. Mike Hostage said he “told the people working on it, ‘don’t think in terms of a platform.’” In other words, the next fighter might not be an airplane, but a set of technologies that could be stand-alone or mounted on existing aircraft. Hostage said “it’s okay with me” if the next air superiority system is not a manned fighter. “It will happen someday” that a ground-based operator will have all the situation awareness needed to fly a fighter remotely, he said. Directed-energy weapons are among the attributes a sixth-gen system is likely to have, particularly because they offer a nearly unlimited magazine of shots, he noted. Hostage said his only frustration with the F-22—besides the small size of the fleet—is that while it can penetrate deeply into denied airspace, “it can only kill eight bad guys” when it gets there. Hostage hinted at “amazing” technologies that might be back-fitted on legacy, fourth-gen aircraft that could make them relevant for decades, but he declined to name them. He wants to make it costly for an enemy to defend against offensive capabilities “that are cheap to us.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Very pragmatic approach and it very much parallels the approach taken to long range strike. Much like the new bomber I have a hard time believing a new platform won't come out of this. 5th gen jets don't have the range and signature (and other key design considerations such cooling/power generation, sensors etc.) for the threats and theaters we'll be required to operate from in the 2030s. What I'd like to see is a platform that can replaces all the Eagles, Beagles and Raptors. Replacing Beagles while still having the performance and affordable might be tough. I'd imagine you'd want a minimum of 8,000 internal payload with bay's large enough to carry 2,000lb and oversized weapons. That would be a jet in the 50+klbs empty weight range based on 5gen metrics.
 
Hmm So far i see DEW has become a part of "definition" Of Gen-6 Fighter armament.

Anyway how's the feasibility of "Electronically steered laser" ? So far popular image on laser weapon is that YAL-1 like turret.. But in my view at least.. It'll suffer similar downside as mechanically scanned radar when faced with multiple targets, especially fast movers.

Is it feasible for such electronic beam steering ? What's the possible merit like steering angle achievable and perhaps beam agility (How fast it can be pointed out to x and y space) and what's possible differences with radar one ? So far for the ESA radar is that the beam will suffer widening, reducing gain and invite unwanted grating lobes into the array.
 
Apparently so.

Short-Range, Wide Field-of-View Extremely agile, Electronically Steered Photonic Emitter (SWEEPER)

Laser beam-steering is a critical enabler for military and civilian applications including autonomous navigation, chemical-biological sensing, precision targeting and communications. Current beam-steering systems often rely on large, slow, opto-mechanical devices such as the optical gimbal. The gimbal, however, tends to be the largest, slowest and most expensive component in the optical system. Drawing on phased array concepts that revolutionized RADAR technology, the Short-Range, Wide Field-of-View Extremely agile, Electronically Steered Photonic Emitter (SWEEPER) program will develop a compact, agile alternative to mechanical beam-steering. The SWEEPER program seeks to extend phased array beam-steering to the optical domain in the near infrared (0.8 to 2 μm range) by developing optical phased arrays and building on recent advances in photonic integrated circuit (PIC) technology such as increased photonic device density and circuit complexity.

The SWEEPER program seeks to develop an optical phased array (64 X 64 elements) capable of agile (greater than 4x106 o/sec) beam-steering with a high degree of side-lobe suppression (30 dB) and a wide field of view (-45o to +45o) based on PIC technology. Such arrays will require the integration and precise relative electronic phase control of thousands of closely packed optical emitting facets within a very small form factor. By developing this array of emitters with multiple degrees of freedom for phase control, the SWEEPER program not only enables agile beam steering but also beam-forming and multiple beam generation.

Historically, the development of RF phased arrays impacted critical applications such as multi-target tracking for fire control systems and directed beams for low probability-of-intercept communications. Successful development of SWEEPER technology will enable optical phased arrays with analogous impact. Compact implementations enabled by PIC technology will be particularly important for small, SWAP-limited, platforms. The potential application-space for this program is broad, encompassing surveillance, 3D imaging, precision targeting, guidance, navigation and LADAR mapping of buildings and caves.
Click to expand...


I imagine it'd be more difficult to get the required power levels through however.

Also, I wouldn't be too concerned about being able to gimbal a well made lens, etc at high speeds.
 
I’m trying to figure out what an optically phased beam director would look like or how big it would be. Aperture size is proportional to effective range since it determines into how small a spot the beam can be focused. So this "photonic emitter" would have to be an optical analog of an AESA array in that it matches the size of a traditional primary mirror. It would also suggest that the array is the entire optical train. A "normal" laser system has many internal optical components to format, size, and stabilize the beam before it is propagated to the beam director. The photonic emitter sounds like it does all this by itself. The odd thing is, the sensor systems which measure and correct atmospheric wavefront distortion, beam jitter, and target tracking are also integrated through the beam director (common aperture). I would assume that a laser architecture using a photonic emitter would still wind up with a large, mechanically gimballed telescope in order to perform these functions in a bistatic arrangement. For short range applications such as self defense against AAM’s, beam size can be significantly smaller so the packaging would not be a issue.
 
Dragon029 said:
Apparently so.

I imagine it'd be more difficult to get the required power levels through however.

Also, I wouldn't be too concerned about being able to gimbal a well made lens, etc at high speeds.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the news.

and yes, power handling capability..Won't be fun if the elements can't handle more than few watts. Things that interesting to me is how beamsteering can be achieved in such scheme. Browsed SPIE for materials and found one interesting abstracts about "Photonic waveguide"
 
This Lockheed paper I found has some work on an aircraft design from this thread http://enu.kz/repository/2012/AIAA-2012-5490.pdf
Sentinel
 
From a dec 2012 USAF paper,


Evidently, northrop 6th generation fighter concept (as was first presented in AFA article).
 

Attachments

  • northropNGAD.jpg
    northropNGAD.jpg
    117.5 KB · Views: 512
Air Force Anticipates Advanced Engine Technology RFP In December

Posted: Aug. 21, 2014

The Air Force is moving forward with its plans to transition advanced engine technology research into a program of record, announcing this week plans to issue a formal request for proposals by the end of the year for a program aimed at maturing existing technologies by designing, developing, fabricating and testing an adaptive engine that could be installed into a combat aircraft.

Earlier this month, the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center posted a request for information to the Federal Business Opportunities website for the Advanced Engine Technology Program (AETP), a follow-on to the Advanced Engine Technology Development (AETD) effort initiated by the Air Force Research Laboratory in fiscal year 2012 to mature adaptive engine technologies.

On Aug. 19, in a question-and-answer document posted to the same website, the service notes that it will hold an AETP industry day Aug. 29, and states that it plans to issue a formal RFP for the program in December of this year. The service notes that the industry day will help it improve its cost and budget estimates for AETP.

"The program office has developed budget estimates based on the amount of work content it believes is required to meet program objectives within the time frame required," the question-and-answer document states. "However, the program office plans to use inputs provided by industry through the RFI responses and discussions at the Aug. 29 industry day to finalize planned content."

The goal of AETP, according to the posting this week, is to further mature the adaptive engine technologies developed through AETD and other engine technology development efforts AFRL has been pursuing in recent years. Those programs are focused on developing engine architecture capable of increasing fuel efficiency by 25 to 30 percent.

"The objective of AETP is to mature adaptive engine technologies and reduce risks in preparation for a competitive, follow-on engineering and manufacturing development program," the document states. "This will be accomplished by designing, developing, fabricating and testing a complete flight-weight centerline, 45,000-lb thrust-class adaptive engine suitable for further development and ultimate installation into combat aircraft."

AETD's technology maturation efforts are ongoing and will remain so through FY-16 and will culminate with the development and testing of a turbofan engine. The service envisions awarding a four-year contract for AETP in September of 2015. At the end of that contract period, in FY-19, the program would presumably transition into the EMD phase.

In its FY-15 budget request, the service asked for $1.4 billion to fund advanced engine technology development through the future years defense plan. If Congress approves the service's plan -- so far, each of the four defense subcommittees have kept this particular request intact -- funding would begin in FY-16 at $50 million and increase sharply over the next few years to $670 million in FY-19, assuming a second sequester round does not take effect in the outyears.

The service has said its plan to ramp up funding for advanced engine technology development is closely tied to its pursuit of a fighter platform beyond the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, an effort referred to as F-X. Service officials have also said that while programs like AETP are not geared toward developing a second engine option for the F-35, an advanced engine could be a candidate to replace the F135 as well as the engines of other platforms.

Of note, the two companies still involved in the AETD program -- Pratt and Whitney and General Electric -- chose to build their engine proposals to meet F-35 specifications. -- Courtney Albon
 
"Baby's first laser cannon" in a fighter needs to be on the KISS principle - a boresight or near-boresight weapon with the advantage of unlimited shots. The time to worry about steerable versions is on larger platforms or when the technology has matured in service. The best is the enemy of good enough, time after time after time.
 
Thing is, that laser fighter won't have "unlimited shots" if only because of heat management issues (~90% of the energy dumped into a laser does not come out as coherent light, so it has to go away as heat). So some degree of steerability is needed to avoid wating those limited shots. I suspect a laser fighter will end up being more like a missileer in operating concept -- hang back and take potshots from range. Lots of endurance, with the fuel doubling as a heat sink for the laser.
 
bobbymike said:
Of note, the two companies still involved in the AETD program -- Pratt and Whitney and General Electric -- chose to build their engine proposals to meet F-35 specifications. -- Courtney Albon
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that meant nothing more than "will fit in an F-35". Given that the F135 has already run at over 50,000lbs thrust it's difficult to imagine an even larger fighter engine. You'd end up with an F-22 replacement that had more power than a Backfire bomber. ;D (Which will probably be the case even without building a dimensionally larger engine.)
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Of note, the two companies still involved in the AETD program -- Pratt and Whitney and General Electric -- chose to build their engine proposals to meet F-35 specifications. -- Courtney Albon
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that meant nothing more than "will fit in an F-35". Given that the F135 has already run at over 50,000lbs thrust it's difficult to imagine an even larger fighter engine. You'd end up with an F-22 replacement that had more power than a Backfire bomber. ;D (Which will probably be the case even without building a dimensionally larger engine.)
Click to expand...

IMHO with also having emphasis on increased fuel efficiency I read this as a 'Pacific Theater' engine able to cruise efficiently from Guam or Kedena and still be able to 'fight' over the straights of Taiwan for a relevant period of time. This will avoid basing aircraft in politically sensitive areas yet still providing deterrent capability in the area.
 
The technology could go in several directions. Possibly an "F-35 upgrade" (that might not look much like an F-35A). Possibly using the adaptive features to optimize power offtake for a laser.

However, the first practical airborne DEW is likely to be a defensive weapon (range) on a large aircraft (power). It will be a bit of a shock to everyone's system....

....particularly if said large aircraft is one of these.
 

Attachments

  • h-6k2.jpg
    h-6k2.jpg
    42.6 KB · Views: 584
To me, the most interesting items to note for what appears to be the performance requirements, is how incredibly similar they are to some of the original ATF (When it became strictly an A2A stealth fighter in the early 80's) requirements. It's Deja Vu all over again.

It seems like there is someone somewhere in the Pentagon smacking his forehead saying, "I knew we should have bought the YF-23 with the GE engines...."
 
Sundog said:
To me, the most interesting items to note for what appears to be the performance requirements, is how incredibly similar they are to some of the original ATF (When it became strictly an A2A stealth fighter in the early 80's) requirements. It's Deja Vu all over again.

It seems like there is someone somewhere in the Pentagon smacking his forehead saying, "I knew we should have bought the YF-23 with the GE engines...."
Click to expand...

The F120 wasn't as elaborate as this current design. (Anybody know how P&Ws next offering differs from GEs VAATE/ADVENT/WHATEVER?
 
sferrin said:
The F120 wasn't as elaborate as this current design. (Anybody know how P&Ws next offering differs from GEs VAATE/ADVENT/WHATEVER?
Click to expand...


Are you about the F120? Because shortly after P&W were selected, in their own press releases were acknowledging that F120 was better performing but that they had better program management.




For the second part AFAIK P&W is for the moment not testing a variable cycle engine but works on core redesign based on F135. On the other end GE's ADVENT is directly derived from the F120 and thus is a variable cycle engine.


I'm sure p&w will offer a VCE as well later.
 
Ogami musashi said:
sferrin said:
The F120 wasn't as elaborate as this current design. (Anybody know how P&Ws next offering differs from GEs VAATE/ADVENT/WHATEVER?
Click to expand...


Are you about the F120? Because shortly after P&W were selected, in their own press releases were acknowledging that F120 was better performing but that they had better program management.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure. I don't know how you conclude that P&W making a statement about the F120 means the F120 was as complex/ elaborate as the VAATE design.
 
sferrin said:
Yes, I'm sure. I don't know how you conclude that P&W making a statement about the F120 means the F120 was as complex/ elaborate as the VAATE design.
Click to expand...


That's because i didn't. I think sundog was implying that the F120 technology (of which the current GE design if based on) was better than the F119. I just thought you were talking about the actual F119 by "actual design".


Of course it not as elaborate:)
 
Ogami musashi said:
sferrin said:
Yes, I'm sure. I don't know how you conclude that P&W making a statement about the F120 means the F120 was as complex/ elaborate as the VAATE design.
Click to expand...


of which the current GE design if based on
Click to expand...

Why would you think the GE VAATE engine is based on a 25 year old design rather than a clean sheet? Based on published info they're nothing alike.
 
Ogami musashi said:
From a dec 2012 USAF paper,


Evidently, northrop 6th generation fighter concept (as was first presented in AFA article).
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Here's another:



I think it's just notional filler material. Like all the canard equipped ATF concepts that were floating around back in the 80s.
 
Probably yes. But looking back to those ATF canards, even they, displayed some technologies to be used. IIRC, that's what one of boeing artist said about the canarded F/A-XX concept art, that it was essentially a message to buyer about some directions taken.
 
I think that it is likely that the actually thing will resemble these notional concepts. We know where the technology is and the requirements that drive those technology. So unless there's a disruptive technological breakthrough that will redefine aircraft design (such as stealth during the ATF program, where literally all the companies would go back to the drawing board, and the likely winner, ended up finishing last and eliminated), it will be quite predictable I think.
 
donnage99 said:
I think that it is likely that the actually thing will resemble these notional concepts. We know where the technology is and the requirements that drive those technology. So unless there's a disruptive technological breakthrough that will redefine aircraft design (such as stealth during the ATF program, where literally all the companies would go back to the drawing board, and the likely winner, ended up finishing last and eliminated), it will be quite predictable I think.
Click to expand...

Thing is nobody knows what the driving requirements are. A long range Mach 2-3 cruiser is going to look a lot different than a direct F-22 replacement. Consider that design that was posted a few weeks back that had a 20,000lb payload and 4 AAMs up front.
 
sferrin said:
Thing is nobody knows what the driving requirements are. A long range Mach 2-3 cruiser is going to look a lot different than a direct F-22 replacement. Consider that design that was posted a few weeks back that had a 20,000lb payload and 4 AAMs up front.
Click to expand...


That is true. I was under the assumption of it being a direct replacement of the f-22 (broadband stealth, persistent supercruise, ultra range). However, it doesn't have to be. In fact, I just recalled Robert Gate said something about it possibly being a family of systems instead of being a single platform.
 
Arati Prabhakar said the same thing about it being a capability and what all needs to come together instead of what the next aircraft will look like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8giv-1v54JU&list=WL&index=35
 
I'd be utterly surprised if a new platform doesn't come out of these studies; much like a new bomber is coming out of the long range strike program. Clearly new weapons and perhaps a family of air systems will be part of the new approach but I don't see how your can project air dominance with any current platform that is updated. Bolting a DEW on a 5th gen jet would certainly increase its lethality but I'm doubtful that such a meet future threats effectively. I'd like to see a platform that has all aspect wide band low observables, combat radius of 1200-1500nm subsonic, a internal load of 6-8klbs and a SSL in the 500kw range. The latter was mentioned in Grunzingers paper on DEWs as being capable of destroying airplanes at "long ranges." I think those are achievable goals in the 2030-35 timeframe.
 
Sundog said:
It seems like there is someone somewhere in the Pentagon smacking his forehead saying, "I knew we should have bought the YF-23 with the GE engines...."
Click to expand...

Oh, more than likely.

BDF said:
I think those are achievable goals in the 2030-35 timeframe.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling they're going to need a new fighter far sooner than that.
 
BDF said:
I'd like to see a platform that has all aspect wide band low observables, combat radius of 1200-1500nm subsonic, a internal load of 6-8klbs and a SSL in the 500kw range. The latter was mentioned in Grunzingers paper on DEWs as being capable of destroying airplanes at "long ranges." I think those are achievable goals in the 2030-35 timeframe.
Click to expand...


I apologize since this was likely posted only a few pages back, but could you point me to the post or the link? I searched for "Grunzinger" and came up empty handed. Thanks.
 
My apologies, the last name is spelled Mark Gunzinger. Probably one of the more respected analysts on the hill and in the DoD right now. It's a CSBA paper titled Changing The Game, the promise of directed energy weapons 2012. Now this is a great read but as you might imagine it doesn't provide any data on weapon effects except in general terms. He has a chart that illustrates laser applications that compare required power for SSL and chemical lasers vs various targets and sets this against a timeline of demonstrated to a 2-10 year outlook. What it doesn't show is how "weaponizable" a SSL is vs a certain power output. Given that HELLADS has a weight vs output of 5kg/KW and is available today, I think that it's highly plausible that that will come down significantly over the 10-15years.


Anyway hope this helps...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom