USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis

Scott Kenny said:
Assuming that those 3-stream engines are 25% more fuel efficient than F119s, that still won't get an F22 sized aircraft to a 3000nmi combat range/1000-1200nmi combat radius.
Click to expand...
NGAP engines (XA102 and XA103) can stand to gain quite a bit over the F119. An AFRL slide deck in 2018 alluded to as much. When you combine that with a substantially higher fuel fraction by relaxing certain parameters that are less relevant, you can get significant increases in range.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1261.jpeg
    IMG_1261.jpeg
    561.7 KB · Views: 148
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
NGAP engines (XA102 and XA103) can stand to gain quite a bit over the F119. An AFRL slide deck in 2018 alluded to as much. When you combine that with a substantially higher fuel fraction by relaxing certain parameters that are less relevant, you can get significant increases in range.
Click to expand...
That says 18% over F119. Nice, and a significant improvement.

But I repeat, even a 25% increase in efficiency over the F119 will not give the range they're talking about in an F-22 sized airframe.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That says 18% over F119. Nice, and a significant improvement.
Click to expand...
18% over the F119 when used within the F-22. F-35A/C is a 30% increase likely because the airframe can better use the third stream.
Scott Kenny said:
But I repeat, even a 25% increase in efficiency over the F119 will not give the range they're talking about in an F-22 sized airframe.
Click to expand...
You would expect an airframe designed around the AETP would see at least a 25% improvement over existing platforms and I expect likely closer to 40% for some mission profiles.

Edit: the key though is combining with CCA and NGAS to enhance not only the range but the persistence. CCA would provide magazine depth and NGAS the additional persistence for both platforms. 6th gen gets full integrated AI so the pilot can operate for longer due to less taxing mentally or even pass to AI control for portions so the pilot can rest.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
That says 18% over F119. Nice, and a significant improvement.

But I repeat, even a 25% increase in efficiency over the F119 will not give the range they're talking about in an F-22 sized airframe.
Click to expand...

If you optimized the airframe for range at cruise at the cost of maneuverability, why not? Trade offs in acceleration also could be made.
 
Josh_TN said:
If you optimized the airframe for range at cruise at the cost of maneuverability, why not? Trade offs in acceleration also could be made.
Click to expand...
There are several compromises that can improve range dramatically. F-101B managed to squeeze in more total fuel for less efficient engines, an internal bay, SAGE equipment, and still boasted about twice the combat range in comparison to the larger, heavier Phantom.
 
It is important to question narratives but what I see in here is that some people are turning to coping by making somewhat indirect racist arguments.


NMaude said:
Alleged sixth-generation aircraft;):D.
Click to expand...
What are the de facto expected capabilities of 6th gen fighters?

  • Increased size and thus space for installation of future-avionic upgrades
  • Larger/more spacious weapons bay(s)
  • VCE/ACE Engines
  • Much more fuel for longer range/patrol time
  • Increased computation power, cooling and power generation for DEW and much more powerful sensors
  • Enhanced sensors
  • Ability to command Loyal Wingmen/CCAs
  • All-aspect broadband Low Observability

and so on...

Since we're talking about CAC's aircraft; way I see it, the J-36 design fulfills all of these requirements perfectly.

So why say "its not 6th gen bc its Chinese!" when the American side even claims the B-21 bomber to be "6th gen"?

Moreover, this jet identically follows J-20's development path; so as "36011", it is much more mature in it's development than what people make it out to be.

The concept of generations itself is originally a marketing play developed by American manufacturers, yes; but this underestimating and slandering your rival's efforts is a big NO NO in my book.

------

The copious amount of similar arguments that I've seen online in the last couple of days is quite worrying.


So let's all try to keep up the quality of this thread...

This is not directed towards you, by the way @NMaude
 
Last edited:
_Del_ said:
There are several compromises that can improve range dramatically. F-101B managed to squeeze in more total fuel for less efficient engines, an internal bay, SAGE equipment, and still boasted about twice the combat range in comparison to the larger, heavier Phantom.
Click to expand...
But it was slower, lower ceiling, half the missiles, no external stores to speak off, inferior radar, etc. etc.
 
Ainen said:
it was also older significantly, so some of those are not entirely fair.
Click to expand...
XF-88 traces back to a 1946 requirement! First flight in '48!

And if new munitions now give me the ability to bring 10 AMRAAMs or four JASSM worth of effect down range while utilizing only internal carriage in a smaller bay than an F-35, or four AMRAAMs worth of effect at twice the distance? Is having a smaller bay a significant compromise operationally? Every sq footage of reduced bay potentially represents less structural weight and more room for fuel. More fuel for more efficient engines.

Does the airframe really need to be stressed to 9g and 10000 hrs of life? If not, that's more weight savings. Particularly for the naval program, every bit of weight saved compounds quickly. Less weight, better wing-loading, slower approach, lighter gear and structure, smaller gear and structure compounds less weight.

There are a host of rational compromises for our priorities. Particularly if something else is also carrying munitions and sensors deeper and cheaper than the new platform. Range and endurance probably trump raw speed for our current mission requirements. Especially if the new cruise speed is higher. If I can cruise at Mach 1.5 for an hour, for most missions that beats out a sprint at Mach 2.5 I can only sustain for 10 minutes.

I am sure everyone would love a stealthy YF-12 or XF-108, but that extremely expensive program would assuredly meet the same fate as the earlier programs. We don't have an unlimited budget.
 
Ainen said:
If they have time machine, then it's truly hopeless.
Time is on China's side, comrade.
View attachment 753860

But with Chinese next gen effort, the message is clear.
Soviet union didn't claim anything special with mig-25, it simply shown that it's airpower isn't done after 1967.
Everything else was American own overthinking, which USSR simply let go - for fun purposes.

China, on the other hand, very obviously means it. It's a very direct, Dreadnought-like, challenge.
Click to expand...

They do lean on the Art of War as it contains historical lessons from China's past, something military & civilian leadership are taught to be familiar with. China will be a very different adversary for the US than the USSR.

In the end, the NGAD program will offer the flexibility & modularity needed to compete with China due allowing for a quicker turnaround time to develop and field capabilities. The US won't need to wait for a new generation of complex manned platforms to help maintain its edge, it'll just roll out a new unmanned escort that can be integrated into a strike or intercept package.

With the expansion of its defense industry, the US will start seeing more cost competitive entries for NGAD prototypes, and more innovation. However, the DoD supply chain & material sourcing issues are still a major cause for concern, much more than the aircraft that China took out for a drive recently.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
If they have time machine, then it's truly hopeless.
Time is on China's side, comrade.
View attachment 753860

But with Chinese next gen effort, the message is clear.
Soviet union didn't claim anything special with mig-25, it simply shown that it's airpower isn't done after 1967.
Everything else was American own overthinking, which USSR simply let go - for fun purposes.

China, on the other hand, very obviously means it. It's a very direct, Dreadnought-like, challenge.
Click to expand...

Tim's face and voice at the end of that clip... pure Dr. Frankenfurter!

View: https://youtu.be/U_U59u69tys
 
snne said:
What are the de facto expected capabilities of 6th gen fighters?

  • Increased size and thus space for installation of future-avionic upgrades
  • Larger/more spacious weapons bay(s)
  • Much more fuel for longer range/patrol time
  • Increased computation power, cooling and power generation for DEW and much more powerful sensors
  • Enhanced sensors
  • Ability to command Loyal Wingmen/CCAs
  • All-aspect broadband Low Observability
Click to expand...
If you consider the fighter generation definitions then size and fuel have little to do with a generational change. Humans have built big planes with lots of fuel previously. Enhanced sensors isn't a generational transition, an argument could be made for look down shoot down radars, but you could argue that the fusion of sensor data in a way conducted by the F-22 and F-35 was. Hence we don't have a good concept of what the step change from 5th to 6th will be.

I expect 6th gen definition will involve CCA but not just control, more seamless integration into the platform in a way current 5th and 4th gen aircraft cannot achieve which likely means broad AI use. All aspect stealth potentially is a 6th gen capability. Propulsion, or its impact on the airframe, was previously considered a step change, so potentially that will again feature but is that from efficiency or from top speed? We could also see reconfiguration of systems while in flight, such as changes to mission systems, sensor and EW capability or performance, as platforms move to true open architecture.

My thinking though is unless something changes what we will see are 5.5 gen aircraft come out of China, Europe and the US as well. Enhancements to 5th gen but not the generational change we expect.

snne said:
Since we're talking about CAC's aircraft; the way I see it, the J-36 design fulfills all of these requirements perfectly.

So why say "its not 6th gen bc its Chinese!" when the American side even claims the B-21 bomber to be "6th gen"?
Click to expand...
I don't give a toss on who designs the aircraft and I think those using a fighter generational definition to define how a bomber performs are not using it correctly, including the USAF.
snne said:
The concept of generations itself is originally a marketing play developed by American manufacturers, yes; but this underestimating and slandering your rival's efforts is a big NO NO in my book.
Click to expand...
Generational concepts predate the LM marketing that most seem to think it came from.
 
We’re not fighter generations previous to 5th defined more temporally rather than including specific features? In any case, arguments about “generation” as opposed to specific new technologies and capabilities seem rather subjective and ripe for biased abuse.
 
Josh_TN said:
We’re not fighter generations previous to 5th defined more temporally rather than including specific features? In any case, arguments about “generation” as opposed to specific new technologies and capabilities seem rather subjective and ripe for biased abuse.
Click to expand...
5th gen had specific features(though no one actually managed to fullfil them)
otherwise, time generations(encompassing contemporary engineering solutions) always made more sense.
 
Ainen said:
5th gen had specific features(though no one actually managed to fullfil them)
otherwise, time generations(encompassing contemporary engineering solutions) always made more sense.
Click to expand...

I would argue that temporal generations still makes more sense than capability for 5th, given that the supposed features of fifth generation are hardly universal among the four production aircraft we commonly call 5th gen. About all they have in common is AESA and various levels of RCS reduction.
 
Comparing introduction rates for previous aircraft probably is not instructive for either US or PRC. While it is easy to argue China has made more progress in the last couple decades, part of that frankly was because there was more room to grow and more foreign technology to exploit. Both seem to be accelerating their development cycles beyond previous programs. Comparing B-21 to F-35 seems like night and day, and UAV cycles in the US are quite contracted. We are arguably already in the 4th or 5th UAV cycle since the RQ-1.
 
Ainen said:
Out of s4, supersonic agility and landing part of STOL kinda failed.
Click to expand...

Regarding attributes of '5th generation', one "s" sometimes goes and another "s" sometimes comes

stealth
super-maneuverability
supercruise
stol
sensor fusion


Choose wisely
 
Can’t help but feel that analysis in this and the Chinese sixth gen thread are missing the forest for the tree. No one is talking about the reapective role of the fighter in the combat system, which is the actual sixth gen. It is not a plane but a system.
 
In_A_Dream said:
They do lean on the Art of War as it contains historical lessons from China's past, something military & civilian leadership are taught to be familiar with. China will be a very different adversary for the US than the USSR.
Click to expand...
Just the other day I read that Mao didn't read the Art of War until the 1950s, though he did have someone try to find a copy during the war. But he had read the Romance of Three Kingdoms in his youth.

Western observers/analyst probably put too much emphasis on Sun Tzu while ignoring all the other literature and military theory China has produced.
 
Josh_TN said:
Comparing introduction rates for previous aircraft probably is not instructive for either US or PRC. While it is easy to argue China has made more progress in the last couple decades, part of that frankly was because there was more room to grow and more foreign technology to exploit. Both seem to be accelerating their development cycles beyond previous programs. Comparing B-21 to F-35 seems like night and day, and UAV cycles in the US are quite contracted. We are arguably already in the 4th or 5th UAV cycle since the RQ-1.
Click to expand...
It is worth also considering that F-35 had not one IOC in 2015 but another in 2016 and then 2019. We know there is only approx 20% commonality from an airframe perspective so almost three aircraft from one program and across three different operating types, SVTOL, CTOL and CATOBAR. It doesn't look quite so bad in that context.
 
snne said:
What are the de facto expected capabilities of 6th gen fighters?
  • Increased size and thus space for installation of future-avionic upgrades
  • Larger/more spacious weapons bay(s)
  • Much more fuel for longer range/patrol time
  • Increased computation power, cooling and power generation for DEW and much more powerful sensors
  • Enhanced sensors
  • Ability to command Loyal Wingmen/CCAs
  • All-aspect broadband Low Observability
Click to expand...
I feel there's several different sets of drivers at work here, so let's rejig that list:

Mission Dependent
  • Increased size and thus space for installation of future-avionic upgrades
  • Larger/more spacious weapons bay(s) *
  • VCE/ACE Engines
  • Much more fuel for longer range/patrol time
  • All-aspect broadband Low Observability
Evolutionary
  • Increased computation power, cooling and power generation for DEW and much more powerful sensors
  • Enhanced sensors
'Sixth Generation'
  • Ability to command Loyal Wingmen/CCA

I'm not a fan of the generation labels, it's too easy to pick and choose capabilities cross-generation, but ultra-long range is purely an aspect of the Pacific theatre, (and to a lesser extent policing the GIUK gap), and not necessary in other theatres, while engine and weapon bays choices are heavily dependent on your CONOPS. Meanwhile growth in computing, sensor and sensor fusion capabilities are evolutionary (cf Moore's Law) rather than revolutionary. I'm strongly tempted to stick low observability in evolutionary as well. For generational change we should be looking for something revolutionary, and the only thing I see in the so-called sixth generation that's revolutionary is integration of offboard platforms. I will add a second possibility we're likely to see in the short to medium term though: integration of AI functionality (but please don't build Skynet).

* Logical conundrum : If I double AAM complement by doubling bay size, or double AAM complement by halving AAM size (cf Raytheon Peregrine) then are they both Sixth Generation attributes, or not.
 
Moose said:
Why are they comparing X-planes to production aircraft, and IOC dates to "joined service" dates? And why aren't they discussing engines?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the 1 to 1 comparisons that tphuang made (simply because there's more nuance to it than that, and the difficulty of comparing 1 to 1 equivalent IOC vs service entry across different military forces) -- but in terms of comparing the YF-22 and X-35 and their first flight respectively with the J-20's first flight in 2011, he is not wrong because the J-20 which first flew in 2011 was more of a "demonstrator" akin to the YF-22 airframes (they had serial numbers 2001, 2002)

The J-20's equivalent to the F-22 EMD prototypes, first flew in 2014 (serial numbers 201X).

The validity of comparing X-35 to YF-22 and J-20 s/n 2001/2 is another matter, but I do think X-35 is much closer to YF-22 and J-20 s/n 2001/s than say X-29 or X-31.
 
Now that China has released photographs of the J-36 I wonder if the USAF will be under increased pressure to release photographs of its' NGAD demonstrator (No doubt some sort of X-plane)?
 
_Del_ said:
Does the airframe really need to be stressed to 9g and 10000 hrs of life? If not, that's more weight savings. Particularly for the naval program, every bit of weight saved compounds quickly. Less weight, better wing-loading, slower approach, lighter gear and structure, smaller gear and structure compounds less weight.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if the NGAD is designed for more than 8000 hours. If it's as big as an F-111 like I expect it will be, it may only be stressed to 7.5gees instead of 9 at MTOW.


_Del_ said:
There are a host of rational compromises for our priorities. Particularly if something else is also carrying munitions and sensors deeper and cheaper than the new platform. Range and endurance probably trump raw speed for our current mission requirements. Especially if the new cruise speed is higher. If I can cruise at Mach 1.5 for an hour, for most missions that beats out a sprint at Mach 2.5 I can only sustain for 10 minutes.
Click to expand...
I'm starting to lean towards a sustained supersonic flight profile like Blackbirds, just M2 (give or take) instead of M3+.


Ainen said:
Out of s4, supersonic agility and landing part of STOL kinda failed.
Click to expand...
STOL requirements were dropped by USAF. Both YF22 and 23 had the space for the full thrust reversers like the Eagle SMTD.


siegecrossbow said:
Can’t help but feel that analysis in this and the Chinese sixth gen thread are missing the forest for the tree. No one is talking about the reapective role of the fighter in the combat system, which is the actual sixth gen. It is not a plane but a system.
Click to expand...
Valid point.

Looking at s/n 36011 (whatever the hell the official designation ends up being, J-36 seems likely based on numbering), it's obviously a big heavy plane, on the order of Su34 weight if not more. I still feel that it's more like a striker than a WVR dogfighter, though it may be more of an interceptor/primarily BVR fighter rather than a striker.


DWG said:
I'm not a fan of the generation labels, it's too easy to pick and choose capabilities cross-generation, but ultra-long range is purely an aspect of the Pacific theatre, (and to a lesser extent policing the GIUK gap), and not necessary in other theatres, while engine and weapon bays choices are heavily dependent on your CONOPS. Meanwhile growth in computing, sensor and sensor fusion capabilities are evolutionary (cf Moore's Law) rather than revolutionary. I'm strongly tempted to stick low observability in evolutionary as well. For generational change we should be looking for something revolutionary, and the only thing I see in the so-called sixth generation that's revolutionary is integration of offboard platforms.
Click to expand...
Even Germany and Italy were wanting longer range than Typhoon, since the front lines of NATO are now ~700km east of Germany at the minimum.


DWG said:
I will add a second possibility we're likely to see in the short to medium term though: integration of AI functionality (but please don't build Skynet).
Click to expand...
Since the LLMs are starting to show collapses due to them "eating"/analyzing LLM-created bullshit, I doubt that we will see LLMs on military aircraft.
 
DWG said:
'Sixth Generation'
  • Ability to command Loyal Wingmen/CCA
Click to expand...
I really don't see how this is a generational leap given that we've already seen CCAs commanded from 3rd Gen fighters (Harrier). It appears entirely feasible that your only technical requirements are being able to carry a small tablet, and having a datalink to the CCAs (which are highly available). I don't see any reason that you couldn't technically command CCAs from a Cessna or DA42.

The smarts are on the CCAs rather than the commanding aircraft/ground station
 
red admiral said:
I really don't see how this is a generational leap given that we've already seen CCAs commanded from 3rd Gen fighters (Harrier). It appears entirely feasible that your only technical requirements are being able to carry a small tablet, and having a datalink to the CCAs (which are highly available). I don't see any reason that you couldn't technically command CCAs from a Cessna or DA42.

The smarts are on the CCAs rather than the commanding aircraft/ground station
Click to expand...
I don't think that "ability to command" CCAs is the right phrasing.

"Designed to incorporate CCAs as part of the entire system of systems" is probably closer.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I don't think that "ability to command" CCAs is the right phrasing.

"Designed to incorporate CCAs as part of the entire system of systems" is probably closer.
Click to expand...
Take it a step further. An inbuilt AI within the 6th gen platform that knows the pilots/mission intent and seamlessly manages and tasks the respective CCA as required to achieve the mission objectives. The pilot only confirms necessary decisions such as weapons release or a change in tactics.

That level of integration may be beyond a 5th gen platform but would be present from day one in a 6th gen.
 
Ozair said:
Take it a step further. An inbuilt AI within the 6th gen platform that knows the pilots/mission intent and seamlessly manages and tasks the respective CCA as required to achieve the mission objectives. The pilot only confirms necessary decisions such as weapons release or a change in tactics.

That level of integration may be beyond a 5th gen platform but would be present from day one in a 6th gen.
Click to expand...
That's certainly where I want the CCAs to be, but I don't know that the AI will be able to get there in 5-10 years.

AI has been 10 years away for about the last 30 (at least), just like fusion power.
 
Ozair said:
Take it a step further. An inbuilt AI within the 6th gen platform that knows the pilots/mission intent and seamlessly manages and tasks the respective CCA as required to achieve the mission objectives. The pilot only confirms necessary decisions such as weapons release or a change in tactics.
Click to expand...
That's just a box with a computer in it. Hardly generation defining. Why do you even need to host the AI mission manager on a fighter vs on an E-7, or on the ground/ship? We're very much talking about outer loop control vs the likes of a sensor fusion algorithm that is inner loop and much more dependent on the architecture.

I'm not seeing why integration with older platforms is an issue. You've just got a different interface that you need to adapt to what is already there.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom