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

[The Artist]

And don't tell me, the Russians have Tie Fighters under development (MiG), The Europeans have prototype Battlestar Gallactica Vipers and the Chinese have Captain Scarlet Angel Interceptors on the drawing board. ;D

Don't forget Airwolf.

 

[NeilChapman]

And don't tell me, the Russians have Tie Fighters under development (MiG), The Europeans have prototype Battlestar Gallactica Vipers and the Chinese have Captain Scarlet Angel Interceptors on the drawing board. ;D

Don't forget Airwolf.

I'm not joking! This is my job!

Bahahahahaha!

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2016/06/15/air-force-welcoming-navy-input-sixth-generation-fighter

 

[Airplane]

https://news.usni.org/2016/06/15/air-force-welcoming-navy-input-sixth-generation-fighter

This "system of systems" approach that may not include a manned a/c sounds an awful lot like the Army's defunct FCS.

 

[dark sidius]

How can you do air domination with out a manned aircraft ? the drone are low and not agile in air-air dogfight and unable to go supersonic speed ??

 

[malipa]

At the TU Delft people are doing masters thesis on this case, and they state that it is very very unlikely, the technology will probably never get good enough to be able to do such. We will always end up with a manned fighter, I do think that instead a system of aircraft will be used, for instance a capable manned air to air fighter who is followed by a flying wing bomber.

 

[bobbymike]

At the TU Delft people are doing masters thesis on this case, and they state that it is very very unlikely, the technology will probably never get good enough to be able to do such. We will always end up with a manned fighter, I do think that instead a system of aircraft will be used, for instance a capable manned air to air fighter who is followed by a flying wing bomber.

Watching drone tech mature over the last few years I would be reluctant to use "never" in any post on the subject. For the last 30 years we've had air to air drones that just happen to blow up at the end of the "dogfight"

 

[sublight_]

In the end personal opinions wont matter. Autonomous UAV platforms that sit in a warehouse waiting for kill orders will be cheaper than manned platforms. They'll also operate inside of any human decision loop. Tomorrow is here whether anyone likes it or not.

 

[sferrin]

In the end personal opinions wont matter. Autonomous UAV platforms that sit in a warehouse waiting for kill orders will be cheaper than manned platforms. They'll also operate inside of any human decision loop. Tomorrow is here whether anyone likes it or not.

Eventually it's going to come down to $$$. Sure, cost has always mattered but in the past a SAM was cheaper than a fighter or bomber. A SAM isn't cheaper than a JDAM and China is getting to the point with their conventional ballistic missiles that an IRBM will be cheaper than a THAAD or SM-3. We have to find another way to deal with them. I don't see manned fighters going away -ever. Data links and "cyberwar" (I hate that word- it's so overused) will always demand it. The how the manned fighter carries out it's mission might turn into something unrecognizable, but there will always be a "manned thing in the sky to defend our airspace".

 

[sublight_]

In the end personal opinions wont matter. Autonomous UAV platforms that sit in a warehouse waiting for kill orders will be cheaper than manned platforms. They'll also operate inside of any human decision loop. Tomorrow is here whether anyone likes it or not.

there will always be a "manned thing in the sky to defend our airspace".

I think rising costs will preclude that with the exception of looking glass and other airborne command posts.

 

[sferrin]

I think rising costs will preclude that with the exception of looking glass and other airborne command posts.

So how do you destroy targets? How do you keep from turning your defensive forces into a structure that just requires one "master kill" to bring the whole thing down?

 

[sublight_]

I think rising costs will preclude that with the exception of looking glass and other airborne command posts.

So how do you destroy targets? How do you keep from turning your defensive forces into a structure that just requires one "master kill" to bring the whole thing down?

How many communications networks do we have, over how many different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum? With fallback to celestial and map based navigation, they'll still be highly effective in even the harshest post apocalyptic conditions.

 

[sferrin]

I think rising costs will preclude that with the exception of looking glass and other airborne command posts.

So how do you destroy targets? How do you keep from turning your defensive forces into a structure that just requires one "master kill" to bring the whole thing down?

How many communications networks do we have, over how many different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum? With fallback to celestial and map based navigation, they'll still be highly effective in even the harshest post apocalyptic conditions.

Right, but if you're depending on a few airborne command posts to run the whole show, what do you do when they get shot down? How do you control the air then and how do you control the air even when they're still on patrol? You've got no shooters.

 

[bring_it_on]

In the end personal opinions wont matter. Autonomous UAV platforms that sit in a warehouse waiting for kill orders will be cheaper than manned platforms. They'll also operate inside of any human decision loop. Tomorrow is here whether anyone likes it or not.

Eventually it's going to come down to $$$. Sure, cost has always mattered but in the past a SAM was cheaper than a fighter or bomber. A SAM isn't cheaper than a JDAM and China is getting to the point with their conventional ballistic missiles that an IRBM will be cheaper than a THAAD or SM-3. We have to find another way to deal with them. I don't see manned fighters going away -ever. Data links and "cyberwar" (I hate that word- it's so overused) will always demand it. The how the manned fighter carries out it's mission might turn into something unrecognizable, but there will always be a "manned thing in the sky to defend our airspace".

Is there any analysis out there that compares SRBM, MRBM and IRBM costs for various nations (say a china, or a Iran?). One must remember however that the MDA acquisition strategy of something like 2 dozen interceptors a year (THAAD) isn’t the most optimum procurement rate but there are obviously many nations with which we can trade even a 2 or 3:1 ratio when it comes to Missile vs Interceptor. One also has to factor in that a SRBM- IRBM numerical strength for say an Iran would have to factor in losses during or left of launch so they would need plenty of surplus weapons to begin stressing systems like the THAAD and Patriot.



In the long run they have to bring in EMRG and Directed Energy systems to augment the kinetic interceptors.

 

[bobbymike]

Tailored Air Superiority

—Will Skowronski6/21/2016

​The enhanced capabilities of adversaries’ air defense systems are changing the way the Air Force plans to gain air superiority in future conflicts, Air Combat Command’s vice chief, Maj. Gen. Jerry Harris, told lawmakers Saturday. Harris spoke before the House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee during a field hearing at the National Museum of the US Air Force, according to an ACC release. In the future, he said, the service will focus on obtaining air superiority at mission-specific times and places rather than continuously over entire theatres, according to his prepared statement. “It is becoming too problematic and expensive to dominate a near-peer’s densely populated Integrated Air Defense Systems,” he said in his written testimony. In the recently released “Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan,” the service concluded “air superiority is only needed for the time and over the geographic area required to enable joint operations.” Harris likened the mission-specific approach to turning the lights off when leaving the room and said it would save money. But the air superiority report noted a variety of capabilities will be needed to meet the Air Force’s variety of missions.

 

[dark sidius]

Yes and what is the solution for dominate in a restrictive area ? For the instance there is no news about what kind of aircraft will do the job.

 

[NeilChapman]

Tailored Air Superiority

—Will Skowronski6/21/2016

​The enhanced capabilities of adversaries’ air defense systems are changing the way the Air Force plans to gain air superiority in future conflicts, Air Combat Command’s vice chief, Maj. Gen. Jerry Harris, told lawmakers Saturday. Harris spoke before the House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee during a field hearing at the National Museum of the US Air Force, according to an ACC release. In the future, he said, the service will focus on obtaining air superiority at mission-specific times and places rather than continuously over entire theatres, according to his prepared statement. “It is becoming too problematic and expensive to dominate a near-peer’s densely populated Integrated Air Defense Systems,” he said in his written testimony. In the recently released “Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan,” the service concluded “air superiority is only needed for the time and over the geographic area required to enable joint operations.” Harris likened the mission-specific approach to turning the lights off when leaving the room and said it would save money. But the air superiority report noted a variety of capabilities will be needed to meet the Air Force’s variety of missions.

To what "mission-specific time" is the General referring? I thought the Air Force mission was to "fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace".

Enable joint operations with whom? NATO, the Marines?

It's almost impossible to guess how a situation with a "near-peer" will be instigated. History is replete with goofy scenarios. But it doesn't seem very smart to be planning for a limited engagement whatever the scenario.

Perhaps I'm reading this incorrectly?

 

[bring_it_on]

Despite the rhetoric, there will eventually be another aircraft. Replacement cycles don’t go away and there will be multiple leadership changes that would occur between now, and the time a decision is made to pursue something for the future.

Something has to replace the hundreds of F-15’s, and F-22’s on the AF side, and more than 500 F/A-18 E’s and F’s on the Navy side. The focus on a SOS approach makes sense for now. Small bite sized initiatives would no doubt bring capability in shorter increments of time. Weapons, sensors and networks can all be improved in such a way.

Besides research into faster, more longer ranged missiles and high magazine loadouts (SACM). The opening up of the F-35’s mission systems is another approach to make that weapons system, which for good or bad will be the backbone of the future USAF, more easier to upgrade, more frequently and at a lower cost. Same applies to the air-ground munition programs, and hypersonics.

If they end up moving the F-35’s mission systems to a more IBCS like concept (Pentagon owned architecture) then you could possibly look to port many of its R&D directly to additional manned and unmanned programs in the future.

 

[dark sidius]

The F-35 is not and will never be an air dominance airplane.

 

[sferrin]

The F-35 is not and will never be an air dominance airplane.

If you say it enough times maybe it'll be true. Right?

 

[bring_it_on]

The F-35 is not and will never be an air dominance airplane.

You can say the same of the F-16 or F-18. Regardless, how many are operational around the world at the moment? Doing what sort of missions? Air Superiority is a mission and the availability of air-superiority assets is threat dependent. Moreover its a mix of how good your weapons, networks, aircraft, support and training etc are. There is value in all those elements. There will be 400 odd upgraded F-15C's and E's, and 180 odd F-22A's in the inventory and there would be a replacement for some if not all of those. Some would be replaced by unmanned strike aircraft, others possibly by new capability not envisioned at the moment. Quite a few would be by another fighter. Whether that fighter has traditional air-superiority attributes remains to be seen in the era of low-observability (both sides), directed energy, manned-unmanned teaming, and resilient networks.

 

[DrRansom]

The F-35 is not and will never be an air dominance airplane.

What is interesting is that the USAF 2030 report did not mention the F-35 in the context of providing air superiority in future environments.

Anyway, there is a video about the future of US Tactical Fighters from the 2016 AIAA Aviation Conference, see here:
http://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/Aviation2016

 

[Dragon029]

What is interesting is that the USAF 2030 report did not mention the F-35 in the context of providing air superiority in future environments.

The only aircraft referenced by designation in that report is the B-21; not even the F-22 is mentioned. The report is about future non-developed platforms, concepts, and in particular, capability requirements.

 

[Airplane]

The F-35 is not and will never be an air dominance airplane.

What is air dominance? Even a non-maneuvering stealthy missilier (akin to sneaky pete) would dominate against all the Chinese, NKs, and Russians Flankers, Fulcrums, J10s, and etc etc in BVR scenarios. Add in the kinematics of an F/A-18 or a dirty F-16 and 360 degree situational awareness and high off boresight missiles and you have a something that can hold it's own in WVR against those same planes. That being said, the F-35 is still a mistake - and a mismanaged mistake at that!

 

[sferrin]

The F-35 is not and will never be an air dominance airplane.

What is air dominance? Even a non-maneuvering stealthy missilier (akin to sneaky pete) would dominate against all the Chinese, NKs, and Russians Flankers, Fulcrums, J10s, and etc etc in BVR scenarios. Add in the kinematics of an F/A-18 or a dirty F-16 and 360 degree situational awareness and high off boresight missiles and you have a something that can hold it's own in WVR against those same planes. That being said, the F-35 is still a mistake - and a mismanaged mistake at that!

"The F-35 will dominate all existing aircraft. It will have better situational awareness than any aircraft in existence. It's available in land-based, carrier based, and STOVL variants. It's still a mistake." : We get it. It doesn't do back flips at airshows and doesn't look sooper kewl going into combat so it sux. Judas.

 

[SOC]

It doesn't do back flips at airshows and doesn't look sooper kewl going into combat so it sux. Judas.

Nah, it's too expensive overall, too small to remain LO on a modern battlefield, and is overkill for the types of conflicts we're actually willing to get into ;D

 

[sferrin]

It doesn't do back flips at airshows and doesn't look sooper kewl going into combat so it sux. Judas.

Nah, it's too expensive overall, too small to remain LO on a modern battlefield, and is overkill for the types of conflicts we're actually willing to get into ;D

It's cheaper than the alternatives (see the recent Danish competition), will always have a lower RCS than the alternatives, and is required for the types of conflicts we might find ourselves in. Predator drones won't win the day in the South China Sea or Europe.

 

[SOC]

It's cheaper than the alternatives (see the recent Danish competition), will always have a lower RCS than the alternatives, and is required for the types of conflicts we might find ourselves in. Predator drones won't win the day in the South China Sea or Europe.

...and you really think we've got the stones to stand up to anyone who could represent a peer competitor in Europe or the SCS. Ukraine called, they'd like that re-examined.

 

[sferrin]

It's cheaper than the alternatives (see the recent Danish competition), will always have a lower RCS than the alternatives, and is required for the types of conflicts we might find ourselves in. Predator drones won't win the day in the South China Sea or Europe.

...and you really think we've got the stones to stand up to anyone who could represent a peer competitor in Europe or the SCS. Ukraine called, they'd like that re-examined.

I keep hoping someday we'll have real leaders again. I don't think either Russia or China want a general nuclear war, and would avoid it as much as the US. That said, they will (and are) push as hard as they can to get what they want. Currently we don't even dare give them a slap, let alone a bloody nose (which is what it'll take to get them to reign it in). As long as the US wasn't taking out targets in Moscow or Beijing (even conventionally) I can't see it automatically escalating to nuclear war. A dustup in the South China Sea or Baltic isn't going to lead to WWIII and I don't see anything short of that causing Russia or China to rethink their current behavior.

 

[malipa]

I have looked into footage of the F-35 at for instance the Leeuwarden Air Base show in the Netherlands, the aircraft is actually rather unstable, it's turn rates are not as bad as one might think. Furthermore though the wings itself are not very big, the fuselage also acts as a lifting surface, and looking at the vortices generated. I think that at low altitude it is a very competitive fighter due to it's smaller wing. The only thing that should be improved is the engine, which should be a damn lot lighter and have more power.

 

[sferrin]

The only thing that should be improved is the engine, which should be a damn lot lighter and have more power.

Considering the pilots say the F-35 has excellent acceleration, and the engine has been run at 50,000lbs+ on the bench, I don't think it's THAT bad.

 

[malipa]

Can you state the source? I would love to adapt/correct my views/analysis

 

[sferrin]

Can you state the source? I would love to adapt/correct my views/analysis

The 50k thing was in AvWeek. I'll track it down later tonight. The F-35 acceleration thing can be found in several articles quoted over on F-16.net.

 

[malipa]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

According to this source they did something like a cobra :O...

 

[seruriermarshal]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

According to this source they did something like a cobra :O...

I can't access the link from my country

 

[sferrin]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

According to this source they did something like a cobra :O...

The articles I'm thinking of were in a couple European magazines and I think they were Danish pilots doing the talking. They talked about going up against F-16s. They popped up a month or two ago.

 

[Dragon029]

Can you state the source? I would love to adapt/correct my views/analysis

The 50k thing was in AvWeek. I'll track it down later tonight. The F-35 acceleration thing can be found in several articles quoted over on F-16.net.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101226060817/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/08/27/01.xml&headline=Pratt

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Pratt & Whitney is upping the ante in the ongoing F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine war by revealing the F135 has achieved combat-rated thrust 20% higher than the specification.

The disclosure raises the demonstrated sea-level thrust for the F135 above 50,000 lb., and follows results from the General Electric/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team earlier this month that indicate the F136 alternate engine has in excess of 15% margin against the same specification.

 

[GeorgeA]

As alluded to in the quote, the F136 was also tested to above 50,000 lbf, actually 53K IIRC.

 

[Dragon029]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

According to this source they did something like a cobra :O...

I can't access the link from my country

“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA.

As alluded to in the quote, the F136 was also tested to above 50,000 lbf, actually 53K IIRC.

I haven't heard that one, source? The article I quoted said the F136 reached 15% above spec, aka ~49.5Klbf.

 

[sferrin]

I don't suppose you have handy those translations of the European magazines wherein a couple of pilots were talking about dogfighting F-16s?