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

[jsport]

very hard to argue against your points Marauder.

 

[rooster]

I don't see the logic in removing a human from the airframe. The only cost savings is in the life support as all else as far as airframe, engines, sensors and flight control systems remain in place. You save a few thousand pounds of weight removing a cockpit, but that doesn't translate into that much of a greater range. You still need to write the requirements, design, proto it, flight test it, and do everything else like a manned aircraft. How does removing the human suddenly make an allegedly unaffordable aircraft affordable when it's not the life support systems creating the bulk of the costs?

Removing the human opens up a large volume for fuel. And canopy/windshield drag can be a very non-trivial chunk of overall drag.
Their removal permits an optimal inlet placement.

I've seen claims that total pilot interface/support equipment cost is around 10% of overall vehicle cost.

Not sure I've e8n estimates on how much pilot interface/safety adds to design or DT/OT testing costs though
surely not being exposed to redesign/re-qualification costs for human interface systems (OBOGS, ejection seats, HMDS etc)
is a large advantage of unmanned systems.

Inlet placement depends not on manned or unmanned but on number of engines and the performance demands. Obviously for a single engine stealth kite, like x47, the inlet where a canopy would be makes sense. For maneuvering twin engine supersonic aircraft that position is no longer optimal.

I've seen that 10% figure before. I don't think 10% on the cost of a drone suddenly makes the price point unaffordable for the US. Which is the argument for a drone. Cost.

Obviously removing the cockpit opens more room for fuel if you leave the cockpit structure in the mold line, which isn't going to happen. You can design in plenty of fuel for very long ranged fighters. That's all in the mold line. For every drone you design witn X gallons of fuel, a manned aircraft can be designed with 1.2X or X + 500.

Spend billions on an unmanned fighter and save 10% in life support and human requirements. Realise its a mistake and spend billions more to fix it. That's what see happening.

Make it optionally manned.

Other than slow missile trucks and few reckon platforms the US had not fielded a drone. Now they want to skip over all the incremental combat drone aircraft we could have had and go straight into air superiority? Something is wrong here.

 

[Sundog]

Then a manned platform also does not need as much electronics as the information is coming from other platforms. Again the only difference is that multiple unmanned drones can be disabled by going after the "mother ship". Unmanned can be jammed. Unmanned cannot.

This I think is as bad an idea as leaving the gun out of the Phantom.

Leaving a human out of the cockpit can take a decade to correct with something manned. Very bad idea. At least at bare minimum make it optionally manned or this could be a very costly mistake in more ways than dollars.

The Phantom is a poor analogy, due to the limitations of the training, tactics, and missile technology available at the time. It's like arguing we should go back to sundials, because those don't fail as often as modern watches/cell phones. As you can see in this report, guns kills have dropped so much that I don't know if the weight and maintenance of the gun is worth it anymore. Also, we now have AI software that in simulated fights against pilots kill the manned aircraft every time. There will still be "manned fighters" in the future, but the purpose of the man will be to manage the fight, not engage directly in it, except as a last result.

 

[TomcatViP]

Combat drone airframe also don't need training. One surrogate among hundred will suffice to train their manned counterpart and refine tactics. And even there a specially built one, re-inforced for sustained training operations (if deemed representative of the fleet), would do the trick. Then the combat operative airframe can be built without the burden of long life requirements at a lower cost or similar one but better performances. For example, turbine components can be made out of less expensive material and relaxed cooling needs knowing that they wouldn't have to sustain several flight and abid to maintenance cost targets.

I see the recent drafting of the single usage category of airframe as the translation of this reflexion.

 

[marauder2048]

Inlet placement depends not on manned or unmanned but on number of engines and the performance demands. Obviously for a single engine stealth kite, like x47, the inlet where a canopy would be makes sense. For maneuvering twin engine supersonic aircraft that position is no longer optimal.

Rather depends on the supersonic AOA reqs. There's a lot to commend top mounted inlets particularly when you don't have a canopy in the way.

I've seen that 10% figure before. I don't think 10% on the cost of a drone suddenly makes the price point unaffordable for the US. Which is the argument for a drone. Cost.

The basic calculation is based on the cost per pound of empty weight multiplied by the total weight of pilot support equipment.
Since those are more the known knowns it's what gets cited as a base reduction. The use of non man-rated components
and other savings are harder to quantify. Happy to learn about some estimates.

Obviously removing the cockpit opens more room for fuel if you leave the cockpit structure in the mold line, which isn't going to happen.
You can design in plenty of fuel for very long ranged fighters. That's all in the mold line. For every drone you design witn X gallons of fuel, a manned aircraft can be designed with 1.2X or X + 500.

Cut the typical volume for cockpit/crew support equipment in half and it's still hundreds of gallons.
I'll accept that for a very large fighter that gain may be less meaningful.

Other than slow missile trucks and few reckon platforms the US had not fielded a drone. Now they want to skip over all the incremental combat drone aircraft we could have had and go straight into air superiority? Something is wrong here.

The incremental combat drone was something like the reactive SEAD UCAV envisioned way back
when which required some enormous leaps in autonomy over the entire mission duration.

For A2A, the autonomy could be more structured and of shorter duration but still tactically useful.

 

[sferrin]

What happens when the other guy takes control of your UAV force?

 

[sublight_]

What happens when the other guy takes control of your UAV force?

And how would you go about doing that?

 

[sferrin]

What happens when the other guy takes control of your UAV force?

And how would you go about doing that?

Same way they go about stealing terabytes of data from classified servers.

 

[sublight_]

What happens when the other guy takes control of your UAV force?

And how would you go about doing that?

Same way they go about stealing terabytes of data from classified servers.

Which is predominantly exploited with phishing and social engineering attacks. I wonder how they can get UAV's to open their email.....

 

[sferrin]

What happens when the other guy takes control of your UAV force?

And how would you go about doing that?

Same way they go about stealing terabytes of data from classified servers.

Which is predominantly exploited with phishing and social engineering attacks. I wonder how they can get UAV's to open their email.....

How did Israel and the US get Iran's centrifuges to "open their email"?

 

[aero-engineer]

What happens when the other guy takes control of your UAV force?

And how would you go about doing that?

Same way they go about stealing terabytes of data from classified servers.

Which is predominantly exploited with phishing and social engineering attacks. I wonder how they can get UAV's to open their email.....

This back and forth has the seeds of a Duffleblog or Onion article......

 

[sferrin]

What happens when the other guy takes control of your UAV force?

And how would you go about doing that?

Same way they go about stealing terabytes of data from classified servers.

Which is predominantly exploited with phishing and social engineering attacks. I wonder how they can get UAV's to open their email.....

This back and forth has the seeds of a Duffleblog or Onion article......

Because it's unpossible a UAV could ever be compromised right?

 

[jsport]

Inlet placement depends not on manned or unmanned but on number of engines and the performance demands. Obviously for a single engine stealth kite, like x47, the inlet where a canopy would be makes sense. For maneuvering twin engine supersonic aircraft that position is no longer optimal.

Rather depends on the supersonic AOA reqs. There's a lot to commend top mounted inlets particularly when you don't have a canopy in the way.

I've seen that 10% figure before. I don't think 10% on the cost of a drone suddenly makes the price point unaffordable for the US. Which is the argument for a drone. Cost.

The basic calculation is based on the cost per pound of empty weight multiplied by the total weight of pilot support equipment.
Since those are more the known knowns it's what gets cited as a base reduction. The use of non man-rated components
and other savings are harder to quantify. Happy to learn about some estimates.

Obviously removing the cockpit opens more room for fuel if you leave the cockpit structure in the mold line, which isn't going to happen.
You can design in plenty of fuel for very long ranged fighters. That's all in the mold line. For every drone you design witn X gallons of fuel, a manned aircraft can be designed with 1.2X or X + 500.

Cut the typical volume for cockpit/crew support equipment in half and it's still hundreds of gallons.
I'll accept that for a very large fighter that gain may be less meaningful.

Other than slow missile trucks and few reckon platforms the US had not fielded a drone. Now they want to skip over all the incremental combat drone aircraft we could have had and go straight into air superiority? Something is wrong here.

The incremental combat drone was something like the reactive SEAD UCAV envisioned way back
when which required some enormous leaps in autonomy over the entire mission duration.

For A2A, the autonomy could be more structured and of shorter duration but still tactically useful.

Structured autonomy for short duration turns tactical into strategic eventually and is the way to go. Your UAV force is never infiltrated. Code is tight and rigid in its responses.

 

[sferrin]

I'm sure that was the idea at the plethora of defense sites who've had their servers raided too. (And continue to be exploited.)

 

[kaiserd]

Re: posts about UCAV potential vulnerability to cyber attack I think it’s only fair to point out that manned aircraft are more or less just as vulnerable.
Apart from that I’d suggest we all try to stay on topic.

 

[jsport]

Inlet placement depends not on manned or unmanned but on number of engines and the performance demands. Obviously for a single engine stealth kite, like x47, the inlet where a canopy would be makes sense. For maneuvering twin engine supersonic aircraft that position is no longer optimal.

Rather depends on the supersonic AOA reqs. There's a lot to commend top mounted inlets particularly when you don't have a canopy in the way.

I've seen that 10% figure before. I don't think 10% on the cost of a drone suddenly makes the price point unaffordable for the US. Which is the argument for a drone. Cost.

The basic calculation is based on the cost per pound of empty weight multiplied by the total weight of pilot support equipment.
Since those are more the known knowns it's what gets cited as a base reduction. The use of non man-rated components
and other savings are harder to quantify. Happy to learn about some estimates.

Obviously removing the cockpit opens more room for fuel if you leave the cockpit structure in the mold line, which isn't going to happen.
You can design in plenty of fuel for very long ranged fighters. That's all in the mold line. For every drone you design witn X gallons of fuel, a manned aircraft can be designed with 1.2X or X + 500.

Cut the typical volume for cockpit/crew support equipment in half and it's still hundreds of gallons.
I'll accept that for a very large fighter that gain may be less meaningful.

Other than slow missile trucks and few reckon platforms the US had not fielded a drone. Now they want to skip over all the incremental combat drone aircraft we could have had and go straight into air superiority? Something is wrong here.

The incremental combat drone was something like the reactive SEAD UCAV envisioned way back
when which required some enormous leaps in autonomy over the entire mission duration.

For A2A, the autonomy could be more structured and of shorter duration but still tactically useful.

Structured autonomy for short duration turns tactical into strategic eventually and is the way to go. Your UAV force is never infiltrated. Code is tight and rigid in its responses.

on infinitum

 

[sferrin]

So, "we'll never get hacked 'cuz it's unpossible". Okay, got it. Nothing to be concerned about here. It was probably just my imagination that we caused Iranian centrifuges to self-destruct with computer code not requiring them to, "open email".

 

[sublight_]

So, "we'll never get hacked 'cuz it's unpossible". Okay, got it. Nothing to be concerned about here. It was probably just my imagination that we caused Iranian centrifuges to self-destruct with computer code not requiring them to, "open email".

Thank god we don't have any Iranian centrifuges in our Skynet drone network.....

 

[sferrin]

So, "we'll never get hacked 'cuz it's unpossible". Okay, got it. Nothing to be concerned about here. It was probably just my imagination that we caused Iranian centrifuges to self-destruct with computer code not requiring them to, "open email".

Thank god we don't have any Iranian centrifuges in our Skynet drone network.....

So basically you have no answer. You could have just said that from the start instead of avoiding the issue. (Or better yet, not responded at all since you didn't actually add anything of value.)

 

[DrRansom]

The idea that we can jump from minimally-autonomous UAVs to autonomous UAVs as a centerpiece for air superiority is highly ambitious. I have the feeling that the USAF is starting from a ridiculous goal (air superiority in enemy airspace) and getting ridiculous solutions as a result. This is the equivalent of the RAF planning an air superiority campaign over Germany in 1939 - when you start with an unrealistic goal you get the Bristol Defiant.

The question of cyber defense is real - nobody knows if cyber defense is possible in the 21st century. The track record suggests the answer is no. Getting rid of pilots before we understand the cyber battlefield is equally unwise.

 

[sublight_]

So, "we'll never get hacked 'cuz it's unpossible". Okay, got it. Nothing to be concerned about here. It was probably just my imagination that we caused Iranian centrifuges to self-destruct with computer code not requiring them to, "open email".

Thank god we don't have any Iranian centrifuges in our Skynet drone network.....

So basically you have no answer. You could have just said that from the start instead of avoiding the issue. (Or better yet, not responded at all since you didn't actually add anything of value.)

Because you dont remotely understand the mechanisms used for executing that hack. Nobody knows what networking, processing, or storage related platforms will be used with these drones or their network, and in order to pull off that hack, you cannot design the logistics around the infiltration without having a duplicate of the hardware being used (AND potential cooperation from the manufacturers) as was the case in engineering the Stuxnet attack.

 

[sferrin]

So, "we'll never get hacked 'cuz it's unpossible". Okay, got it. Nothing to be concerned about here. It was probably just my imagination that we caused Iranian centrifuges to self-destruct with computer code not requiring them to, "open email".

Thank god we don't have any Iranian centrifuges in our Skynet drone network.....

So basically you have no answer. You could have just said that from the start instead of avoiding the issue. (Or better yet, not responded at all since you didn't actually add anything of value.)

Because you dont remotely understand the mechanisms used for executing that hack. Nobody knows what networking, processing, or storage related platforms will be used with these drones or their network, and in order to pull off that hack, you cannot design the logistics around the infiltration without having a duplicate of the hardware being used (AND potential cooperation from the manufacturers) as was the case in engineering the Stuxnet attack.

They still had to get it in place. (IIRC a printer was involved.) My point is, unless you have full control over EVERY chip in the chain, or at least know what every foreign chip in your system does, you can't say it's secure. And there's the human angle. Just because it's a UAV doesn't make it impervious to being technically compromised.

 

[rooster]

China is ramping efforts to recruit non Chinese assets. You never know what the other guy knows and doesn't know. Remote controlled drones for air superiority is a bad idea. China could have the source code and schematics to gain control. No one is hacking a f35 or f22 to crash it or shoot down a friendly. Idont care if it does not carry an extra 300 gallons of gas. Meaningless compared to the alternative of not controlling your drones. Need to take incremental steps with ucavs. hellfire missile trucks flown out of Nevada killing terrorists is a long way from air superiority and the complex battlespace. A blunder with this could bankrupt the usaf.

 

[jsport]

The idea that we can jump from minimally-autonomous UAVs to autonomous UAVs as a centerpiece for air superiority is highly ambitious. I have the feeling that the USAF is starting from a ridiculous goal (air superiority in enemy airspace) and getting ridiculous solutions as a result. This is the equivalent of the RAF planning an air superiority campaign over Germany in 1939 - when you start with an unrealistic goal you get the Bristol Defiant.

The question of cyber defense is real - nobody knows if cyber defense is possible in the 21st century. The track record suggests the answer is no. Getting rid of pilots before we understand the cyber battlefield is equally unwise.

Ridiculous is right. AI Air superiority is ridicolusly more effective. The only flaw w/ AI AS is that it has more patience than humans and spends too much time waiting for an adversary human mistake to exploit. One must do their Internet home work.
Since someone questioned my creds guess ..will to do the same. Folks seem to forget there are such things as Intranets which never touch the internet. The tight code on french bullet trains has been hacked?? someone would have show me sure proof, Never has been never will be.

If your code libraries are tight there is no software or even literally phyisical space left for any other code on the processors. This can also be networked LinK 16 for example ie no Internet protocol at all. Alot of cyber hype out there.

 

[sferrin]

Ridiculous is right. AI Air superiority is ridicolusly more effective.

"Is"? No. In theory? TBD.

If your code libraries are tight there is no software or even literally phyisical space left for any other code on the processors.

IF

I'll concede that a system can be made secure enough. (We've yet to see bank funds get transferred willy-nilly through remote hacking though that just may be a case of not yet.)

 

[jsport]

"can be made secure enough"

On the Air Sup DO YOUR HOMEWORK . not doing ur homework and not TBD . TBD is boulderdash

 

[sferrin]

"can be made secure enough"

On the Air Sup DO YOUR HOMEWORK . not doing ur homework and not TBD . TBD is boulderdash

It's dependent on being secure enough. All the eggs in that basket. Also, teaching an AI air combat. . .hmmm, I wonder if it would even be as difficult as the driverless car. If you're right, then great, a new wonder weapon. I'll believe it when I see it. WAY too early to dub it the next "game changer".

 

[Mark S.]

Automated air combat is decades away. They have yet to coordinate manned and unmanned aircraft even for more benign missions. It has taken 40 years from the first robots to the highly automated and robotic auto assembly plants we have today and air combat is much more complex. I remember when the robotic installation of windshields generated large piles of broken glass. It doesn't happen overnight and the longest pole in the tend isn't the robots but the knowledge base in the individuals doing the designing, programing and maintenance of the systems. They can't even keep the manning levels up in the UCAV community to generate the required expertise o be applied for new missions. I've spent 40+ years in the auto industry automation field. It may look easy but it's not.

 

[Desertfox]

A UCAV and an F-35 will have the same data links, hence they will have the same vulnerabilities to hacking. If you go completely autonomous with no outside input both an AI UCAV and an F-35 will be just as resistant to hacking.

 

[Dragon029]

Except that the F-35 can't be piloted remotely and any fake data link contacts have to get past a human sanity-check. A pilot isn't going to turn around and shoot down his tankers and AWACS just because they turned red on his TSD.

 

[Desertfox]

The hacking doesn't have to go that far, it could be as simple as dialing back the pilot's oxygen supply. All I'm saying is that the vulnerabilities already exists, any input into an aircraft has the potential to be exploited. You can make both piloted aircraft and UCAVs hacker proof by getting rid of inputs but it comes at a cost of greatly limited situational awareness.

 

[kaiserd]

The hacking doesn't have to go that far, it could be as simple as dialing back the pilot's oxygen supply. All I'm saying is that the vulnerabilities already exists, any input into an aircraft has the potential to be exploited. You can make both piloted aircraft and UCAVs hacker proof by getting rid of inputs but it comes at a cost of greatly limited situational awareness.

I agree; if your view is the UCAVs are inherently too vulnerable to cyber attack then that view should carry over to contemporary manned combat aircraft.
If you think the the manned aircraft can be adequately protected then that should also carry over to their unmanned equivalents; they share the same points of vulnerability.

And as other contributors have pointed out you don’t have to fully “take-over” a (manned or unmanned) aircraft to render it operationally ineffective. And given manned fighter aircraft have sophisticated autopilots and and everything is done via computer are manned fighters really that much less vulnerable to cyber-hijacking?

 

[marauder2048]

And you could extend the argument to munitions:

Modern and future long range A2A missiles rely on two-way datalinks meaning both the host
aircraft and the missile are potentially vulnerable to cyber intrusion especially as the duration
of an engagement goes up.

 

[DrRansom]

Manned aircraft have the advantage that - to make them minimally capable - you can work with fewer and simpler systems. If you're reconstituting a fleet after a cyber attack, a manned aircraft requires flight control, environmental control, and basic combat systems. An unmanned aircraft requires flight control and advanced / integrated combat systems. That's a much harder programming lift.

 

[marauder2048]

I can't imagine human pilots are going to be eager to hop back into mounts that have been cyber attacked.

 

[sferrin]

And you could extend the argument to munitions:

Modern and future long range A2A missiles rely on two-way datalinks meaning both the host
aircraft and the missile are potentially vulnerable to cyber intrusion especially as the duration
of an engagement goes up.

Yep.

"ARLINGTON, Va. --- The Army successfully tested its ability to redirect munitions in flight Aug. 28 in an experiment over the Mohave Desert involving an unmanned aircraft, smart sensors and artificial intelligence.

It was the "signature experiment for FY19" said Brig. Gen. Walter T. Rugen, director of the Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team, speaking Thursday at the Association of the U.S. Army's "Hot Topic" forum on aviation.

The experiment at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California, tested a capability developed by his CFT called A3I, standing for Architecture, Automation, Autonomy and Interfaces.

WELDING AIR-GROUND 'PUNCH'

In the A3I experiment, an operator in the back of an MH-47 Chinook helicopter used an iPad to control a Grey Eagle unmanned aircraft system over China Lake. He fired a GBU-69 small glide munition from the Grey Eagle and it was the first time that type of UAS fired that kind of missile.

Then as the munition approached its target, a system of ground sensors picked up a higher-priority target nearby. Another operator in the Tactical Operations Center was able to quickly take over control of the glide munition and redirect it to the new target, which it ultimately destroyed."

Accueil - Defense aerospace

Find all the news concerning defense and aerospace.

www.defense-aerospace.com

 

[jsport]

Automated air combat is decades away. They have yet to coordinate manned and unmanned aircraft even for more benign missions. It has taken 40 years from the first robots to the highly automated and robotic auto assembly plants we have today and air combat is much more complex. I remember when the robotic installation of windshields generated large piles of broken glass. It doesn't happen overnight and the longest pole in the tend isn't the robots but the knowledge base in the individuals doing the designing, programing and maintenance of the systems. They can't even keep the manning levels up in the UCAV community to generate the required expertise o be applied for new missions. I've spent 40+ years in the auto industry automation field. It may look easy but it's not.

someone is not up to date w/ the Wright Pat. Not doing ur homework for you.

 

[sferrin]

Automated air combat is decades away. They have yet to coordinate manned and unmanned aircraft even for more benign missions. It has taken 40 years from the first robots to the highly automated and robotic auto assembly plants we have today and air combat is much more complex. I remember when the robotic installation of windshields generated large piles of broken glass. It doesn't happen overnight and the longest pole in the tend isn't the robots but the knowledge base in the individuals doing the designing, programing and maintenance of the systems. They can't even keep the manning levels up in the UCAV community to generate the required expertise o be applied for new missions. I've spent 40+ years in the auto industry automation field. It may look easy but it's not.

someone is not up to date w/ the Wright Pat. Not doing ur homework for you.

I doubt anybody would want you to.

 

[jsport]

Automated air combat is decades away. They have yet to coordinate manned and unmanned aircraft even for more benign missions. It has taken 40 years from the first robots to the highly automated and robotic auto assembly plants we have today and air combat is much more complex. I remember when the robotic installation of windshields generated large piles of broken glass. It doesn't happen overnight and the longest pole in the tend isn't the robots but the knowledge base in the individuals doing the designing, programing and maintenance of the systems. They can't even keep the manning levels up in the UCAV community to generate the required expertise o be applied for new missions. I've spent 40+ years in the auto industry automation field. It may look easy but it's not.

someone is not up to date w/ the Wright Pat. Not doing ur homework for you.

I doubt anybody would want you to.

Then stop bringing it up

 

[sferrin]

Automated air combat is decades away. They have yet to coordinate manned and unmanned aircraft even for more benign missions. It has taken 40 years from the first robots to the highly automated and robotic auto assembly plants we have today and air combat is much more complex. I remember when the robotic installation of windshields generated large piles of broken glass. It doesn't happen overnight and the longest pole in the tend isn't the robots but the knowledge base in the individuals doing the designing, programing and maintenance of the systems. They can't even keep the manning levels up in the UCAV community to generate the required expertise o be applied for new missions. I've spent 40+ years in the auto industry automation field. It may look easy but it's not.

someone is not up to date w/ the Wright Pat. Not doing ur homework for you.

I doubt anybody would want you to.

Then stop bringing it up

Where did I ask you to do my homework? Oh right, I didn't.