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

NeilChapman said:
Thanks D! That was a helpful explanation. I understand your explanation and see the value in going back to destroy radars that pop up behind you. If I send in something like the MALD-J and radar sites light up which is turn plotted by B-21, PCA or some other high flying, stealthy asset, do I need to go back and eliminate the threat? Are hypersonic weapons 1000 mi out a possible alternative?

If the EW mission is not integrated into this airframe would it be exportable?
Click to expand...
I think the EW mission can probably be integrated and still be exportable; the F-35 has a pretty serious EW suite and it's going to see widespread use.

As for the first part, you can definitely use decoys and drones to try and locate SAMs like Wild Weasel aircraft, but if an enemy is smart and if they have a decently sized IADS (remembering we're talking about an enemy we're willing to send B-21s and PCAs against) they're not going to show their hand all at once / not within the first few hours or days. SAMs might lay in wait, camouflaged and only start firing when they receive information that some contacts (which they know may or may not be decoys) are actually dropping bombs, at which point the stealth aircraft may find themselves with radars radiating at them from all sides. SAMs that were in other locations previously may also be ordered to hurry over and try and fill the gap in their air defences while (known to them or not) the B-21s and PCAs are operating behind their lines.

From what I've read, the intent is that F-35s and potentially other aircraft will be working to ensure that these tunnels through enemy IADS don't close up (ie, they'll be on SEAD / DEAD duty, working around and in the trail of these B-21s, etc), but it's certainly possible that the F-35s are too busy, or that intelligence underestimates the forces in that area, meaning there are no F-35s there, or that the F-35s are too far away due to poor timing / mission planning.

Hypersonic weapons launched from 1000nmi (or closer) could work to take out those pop-up threats, but you do ideally still want something stealthy to get EO/IR (and ideally GMTI as well for safe measure) eyes on the SAM, that way it can't just escape into the night once it stops radiating - a Mach 5 cruise missile will still take a little over 20 minutes to reach a target 1000nmi away, plus there's the additional time spend detecting, identifying and locating the threat. A 1000nmi hypersonic cruise missile with sufficiently advanced terminal guidance probably isn't going to be that cheap too, so you want to be pretty certain that you're not firing at an inflatable decoy with an emitter.

This all largely focuses on air-to-ground too; as others have said, the PCA is being designed to China in mind; long range cruise missiles might be effective against SAMs, but they're not going to be very effective against aircraft. The J-20 in particular need a strong counter and while the F-22 and F-35 should generally hold an advantage, they will be bound by tanker support that can be threatened by the same J-20 combined with PL-15s, etc missiles. As already mentioned, giving these aircraft AETP engines will give them a pretty good combat radius, but being able to achieve or exceed those ranges while incorporating supercruise or afterburner will be important if you're detecting threats like the J-20 from only maybe 50-100nmi (placing it maybe only 100-150nmi from the B-21) and you want to engage the enemy while pushing the fight away from the B-21, potentially by supercruising away from the B-21 and engaging the J-20 from another angle, or just rushing up to it and forcing it to go on the defensive while the bomber slips away.

Ultimately though, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the USAF believes is needed.
 
kcran567 said:
To me looks like the original ATF from Lockheed, but with intakes on dorsal. Not impressed, I don't like it (the Boeing 6th Gen). Just my $.02 cents.
Click to expand...

How many different ways are there to shape a twin engine stealth airplane with the same or similar missions and weapons? Tell me. Even Lockheed's art work might as well be a clone of the YF-23.

What do you want? A "project silverbug" because it's cool and sci-fi looking?
 
Dragon029 said:
NeilChapman said:
Thanks D! That was a helpful explanation. I understand your explanation and see the value in going back to destroy radars that pop up behind you. If I send in something like the MALD-J and radar sites light up which is turn plotted by B-21, PCA or some other high flying, stealthy asset, do I need to go back and eliminate the threat? Are hypersonic weapons 1000 mi out a possible alternative?

If the EW mission is not integrated into this airframe would it be exportable?
Click to expand...
I think the EW mission can probably be integrated and still be exportable; the F-35 has a pretty serious EW suite and it's going to see widespread use.
Click to expand...

I think if this is an "F-22 replacement" (read badass) then there will be congressional pushback to not export. That, to me, would be a mistake. I might limit exports to those countries with "special relationships" with the US; e.g. UK, Japan, Australia, Israel. Perhaps other NATO countries, that were already exceeding their defense spending objectives (2%) could be considered? Or, if they wrote big fat checks to help underwrite EMD phase.

Dragon029 said:
Hypersonic weapons launched from 1000nmi (or closer) could work to take out those pop-up threats, but you do ideally still want something stealthy to get EO/IR (and ideally GMTI as well for safe measure) eyes on the SAM, that way it can't just escape into the night once it stops radiating - a Mach 5 cruise missile will still take a little over 20 minutes to reach a target 1000nmi away, plus there's the additional time spend detecting, identifying and locating the threat. A 1000nmi hypersonic cruise missile with sufficiently advanced terminal guidance probably isn't going to be that cheap too, so you want to be pretty certain that you're not firing at an inflatable decoy with an emitter.
Click to expand...

Ahhh - very good points

Dragon029 said:
This all largely focuses on air-to-ground too; as others have said, the PCA is being designed to China in mind; long range cruise missiles might be effective against SAMs, but they're not going to be very effective against aircraft. The J-20 in particular need a strong counter and while the F-22 and F-35 should generally hold an advantage, they will be bound by tanker support that can be threatened by the same J-20 combined with PL-15s, etc missiles. As already mentioned, giving these aircraft AETP engines will give them a pretty good combat radius, but being able to achieve or exceed those ranges while incorporating supercruise or afterburner will be important if you're detecting threats like the J-20 from only maybe 50-100nmi (placing it maybe only 100-150nmi from the B-21) and you want to engage the enemy while pushing the fight away from the B-21, potentially by supercruising away from the B-21 and engaging the J-20 from another angle, or just rushing up to it and forcing it to go on the defensive while the bomber slips away.

Ultimately though, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the USAF believes is needed.
Click to expand...

Range is what I was worried about. And too few airframes because of cost. My understanding regarding the efficiencies of two engines was skewed.

There's always the possibility that new manufacturing techniques may enable transformational cost reductions. We've seen 10's of thousands of hours removed from F-35 production times. Modeling is actually much better than it was when F-35 was first designed.
 
From Air Force Association

USAF Buying Back Sixth Generation Development

The Air Force’s Fiscal 2019 budget request contains a big jump in funding to develop next-generation air dominance, or a sixth generation air superiority system, Lt. Gen. Jerry Harris, the deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, said Tuesday. The Fiscal 2019 budget request, released last month, shows “we put a ton of money back in, but that’s money pilfered” from previous budgets where the service was forced to fund current operations over long-term planning. “All we’ve done is put it back,” Harris said. The Air Force’s Fiscal 2019 budget request calls for $504 million in research, development, test, and evaluation for Next Generation Air Dominance. This is up from $294.7 million in Fiscal 2018. This funding will dramatically increase to $1.4 billion in Fiscal 2020 and $2 billion the year after. The next generation of air superiority is not going to just be an airborne platform, it will also need to work with space assets and sensors that are “not typically associated with an air vehicle,” Harris said. This also needs to be coupled with development of new weapons, because the Air Force “can’t continue to shoot fourth generation weapons off fifth and six generation” aircraft, Harris said. —Brian Everstine
 
bobbymike said:
...

The next generation of air superiority is not going to just be an airborne platform, it will also need to work with space assets and sensors that are “not typically associated with an air vehicle,” Harris said. This also needs to be coupled with development of new weapons, because the Air Force “can’t continue to shoot fourth generation weapons off fifth and six generation” aircraft, Harris said. —Brian Everstine
Click to expand...

What would 5th and 6th generation weapons include, hypersonic, lasers and EW? What else?
 
NeilChapman said:
bobbymike said:
...

The next generation of air superiority is not going to just be an airborne platform, it will also need to work with space assets and sensors that are “not typically associated with an air vehicle,” Harris said. This also needs to be coupled with development of new weapons, because the Air Force “can’t continue to shoot fourth generation weapons off fifth and six generation” aircraft, Harris said. —Brian Everstine
Click to expand...

What would 5th and 6th generation weapons include, hypersonic, lasers and EW? What else?
Click to expand...

More like multimode seekers. Better kinematics and maneuvering. Lasers require time to burn through. Then if they get distorted by a shockwave, you can guess what happens to the beam.
 
Lasers that can fit on a fighter that are capable enough to destroy an opposing fighter or incoming missile in a timely manner may be quite some time away but I think a "6th generation" fighter must make full provisions for such weaponry, and include provisions for defenses against said weaponry.

Despite this the main armament will still consist of guided missiles, just ones that are faster and "smarter" with the benefits of better propulsion, multi-mode seekers, and other improvements.

Will they even bother with a gun I wonder? The prospect of guided ammunition for it might add some appeal to a seemingly obsolete weapon at least early in the fighter's career.

I think there is a valid case to be made for a two-man crew on these 6th generation fighters. Even with all of the sensor fusion trying to create a single clear picture it seems like there will be an awful lot for one pilot to manage.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Will they even bother with a gun I wonder? The prospect of guided ammunition for it might add some appeal to a seemingly obsolete weapon at least early in the fighter's career.
Click to expand...

Air applications for OATK's command guided 30x173 come to mind but there's been some reluctance
(mainly on safety grounds) on the part of the Air Force to adopt "exotic" medium caliber ammo for internal cannon.
 
I would be surprised if there is a two occupant version, much like the super bug - some single seaters and some dual. Given that so much will be asked of it, its just a given certainty.

The guided ammo is interesting if it has a gun, but god awful expensive. I doubt it will have a gun. In place of a gun likely 3 to 4 aim9x initially until something new is introduced.
 
Airplane said:
I would be surprised if there is a two occupant version, much like the super bug - some single seaters and some dual. Given that so much will be asked of it, its just a given certainty.

The guided ammo is interesting if it has a gun, but god awful expensive. I doubt it will have a gun. In place of a gun likely 3 to 4 aim9x initially until something new is introduced.
Click to expand...

Those mini-AAMs they're working on come to mind.
 
The USAF has a road-map for future kinetic capability with MSDM and SACM and is thinking in terms of the Air breathing, Ground based, and Ballistic Missile threat or a combination of things that could potentially hold US air-superiority at risk. It isn't a coincidence that a dedicated kinetic weapon funding stream is present inside the larger NGAD portfolio even at this very early stage. New concepts would have to emerge based both on where the technology has advanced (and is advancing) and where the adversaries are investing. Interestingly, with the SACM and the other self defense missile they are looking to invest in TRL-2 and 3 technologies so really going after basic tech research as opposed to working with more mature technology (like an ER AMRAAM or the T3). This suggests that their perceived operational need in that time-frame requires this approach and lead time.

I think what the Aim-9X becomes is rather irrelevant to a notional 6th generation platform of the 2030s.
 

Attachments

  • ASKVision (1).png
    ASKVision (1).png
    558.4 KB · Views: 483
  • ASKVision2.png
    ASKVision2.png
    642.3 KB · Views: 465
  • 10-AFRL_RW_BFI-PACA-2015-RW-Briefing-Final-Col-Smith.pdf
    3 MB · Views: 49
A patent for a "Efficient Power and Thermal Management System for High Performance Aircraft" by Northrop Grumman
 

Attachments

  • US009828870.pdf
    670.4 KB · Views: 189
What is the link with the 6th gen fighter ?develop small, less-survivable aircraft that can be affordably manufactured in large numbers , the opposite of a next gen fighter.
 
While it may not be linked to the Next Generation Fighter specifcly it is something that will have an influence on both 5th and 6th generation aircraft. But feel free to move it to a more appropriate thread.
 
Fighters will finally enter the fate of ships which have became too bulky and expensive before end of WWII.

And they deliver the dominance of the fight to the small little fighter aircraft.

Now, fighters will deliver their dominance to missile? UCAV?
 
Navy's sixth-gen fighter AOA delayed about a year


The Navy has delayed by about a year plans to complete an analysis of alternatives for a sixth-generation fighter, setting a fiscal year 2019 target completion date for the effort that began in May 2016 and was originally slated to be done last November.

Senior service officials, in written testimony for an April 12 House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee hearing, reported the Navy is still working to identify options for the FA-XX, also called the Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems.

"The Department is continuing a Next Generation Air Dominance Analysis of Alternatives to address the anticipated retirement of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft beginning in the mid-2030s," Vice Adm. Paul Grosklags, representing the Navy's acquisition executive, wrote along with Lt. Gen. Steven Rudder, deputy commandant for aviation, and Rear Adm. Scott Conn, director for air warfare.

"We anticipate the NGAD AOA to report out in FY 2019," the testimony states.

The AOA began after the Pentagon acquisition executive signed a May 16, 2016 memo approving the Navy's request for a materiel development decision and -- at the time -- was anticipated to be about an 18-month project, according to a service spokesman.

"The Joint Chiefs of Staff approved the Initial Capabilities Document that frames NGAD study requirements to support the full range of military operations from carrier-based platforms," according to the written testimony. "The AOA is considering the widest possible range of materiel concepts while balancing capability, cost/affordability, schedule, and supportability."

The senior officials added the ongoing analysis will "assess manned, unmanned, and optionally manned approaches to fulfill predicted 2030 [and beyond] mission requirements."

The analysis will consider current platforms, evolutionary or incremental upgrades to baseline programs, and new-development systems or aircraft to meet identified gaps in required capability, according to the testimony.

The Navy's FY-19 budget request seeks more than $25 million across the five-year spending plan in research and development funding for management support.
Click to expand...
 
The Navy is not in a hurry for the FA/XX program, it could be an evolution of the F-35C , may be with more range with new adaptive engine or a new Platform.
 
A low risk solution could most definitely feature a modified F-35C, although if I were to venture a guess, I'd say that the Navy may instead pursue enhanced capability in block V F-35 C and a Block IV F-18E/F as a low risk / Low Cost option.
 
bring_it_on said:
A low risk solution could most definitely feature a modified F-35C, although if I were to venture a guess, I'd say that the Navy may instead pursue enhanced capability in block V F-35 C and a Block IV F-18E/F as a low risk / Low Cost option.
Click to expand...

Maybe then the Super Hornet would finally get the 26,500lb thrust F414s they've been talking about for 20 years. ::)
 
Maybe then the Super Hornet would finally get the 26,500lb thrust F414s they've been talking about for 20 years.
Click to expand...

Nah..they'll keep that for the block V :eek:
 
FighterJock said:
bring_it_on said:
Maybe then the Super Hornet would finally get the 26,500lb thrust F414s they've been talking about for 20 years.
Click to expand...

Nah..they'll keep that for the block V :eek:
Click to expand...

That is IF they develop a Block 5 Super Hornet.
Click to expand...

It really makes someone wonder why they put those underpowered engines in brand new AC 20 years ago. The SH is a large airplane and it wouldn't have been that much radically different to put the GE from the Tomcat in it.
 
Airplane said:
FighterJock said:
bring_it_on said:
Maybe then the Super Hornet would finally get the 26,500lb thrust F414s they've been talking about for 20 years.
Click to expand...

Nah..they'll keep that for the block V :eek:
Click to expand...

That is IF they develop a Block 5 Super Hornet.
Click to expand...

It really makes someone wonder why they put those underpowered engines in brand new AC 20 years ago. The SH is a large airplane and it wouldn't have been that much radically different to put the GE from the Tomcat in it.
Click to expand...

It would have been huge. (There's some user artwork around here somewhere of a Stealthified Super Hornet with a pair of F110s in it.) When you consider a Super Hornet is as heavy as an F-15C those F414s seem anemic.
 
bring_it_on said:
Maybe then the Super Hornet would finally get the 26,500lb thrust F414s they've been talking about for 20 years.
Click to expand...

Nah..they'll keep that for the block V :eek:
Click to expand...

Problem is money. GE has yet to find anyone in the world willing to pay to develop it. There's interest in acquiring it once it exists, depending on the price, but not to fund the upfront costs. There was talk of a higher thrust engine on Boeing's previous Advanced Super Hornet proposals, but no one bit. As Super Hornets are brought up to Block III standard in the 2020s that would be a perfect time to install the higher thrust version, However, GE reps have told me personally that the cost of developing it seems more than the USN is willing to pay [for the return they'd get] As the biggest customer, if the USN can't cost-justify it, it's not likely anyone else will.
 
sferrin said:
Airplane said:
FighterJock said:
bring_it_on said:
Maybe then the Super Hornet would finally get the 26,500lb thrust F414s they've been talking about for 20 years.
Click to expand...

Nah..they'll keep that for the block V :eek:
Click to expand...

That is IF they develop a Block 5 Super Hornet.
Click to expand...

It really makes someone wonder why they put those underpowered engines in brand new AC 20 years ago. The SH is a large airplane and it wouldn't have been that much radically different to put the GE from the Tomcat in it.
Click to expand...

It would have been huge. (There's some user artwork around here somewhere of a Stealthified Super Hornet with a pair of F110s in it.) When you consider a Super Hornet is as heavy as an F-15C those F414s seem anemic.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why they should have design in the GEs. The rear fuselage would have been wider, but the SH was a clean sheet airplane. Everything is new. They even put fuel tanks inside the canted verticles... So even those were newly tooled. But I guess they did keep the name. . .
 
There's interest in acquiring it once it exists, depending on the price, but not to fund the upfront costs.
Click to expand...

Like all the other things going into the Block III, the Navy could have paid GE to develop it, just as they are spending the cash to get the other enhancements. But they are not really looking into that yet and it remains to be seen when they do. I don't think GE is going to put their own money into the effort given how much they are likely spending, internally, on winning the next engine competition.
 
The F110 is a much larger and heavier engine: ~4000 lb vs ~2450 lb for the F414. One reason why the F/A-18E/F is 11,000 pounds lighter (OEW) than the F-14.

I have never been quite sure why GE has never managed to sell the upgrade (which would give you a pretty sporty T/W). Generally speaking, the Navy hasn't funded any major individual upgrades since the AESA and new front fuselage, which were on the books since 1999. Qualifying a fairly extensive change to the engine is a bigger, longer-term commitment than a CFT.

Speaking of CFTs, absent magic, if you install a more powerful engine and use that extra poke, you're going to pay for it in range. And although GE claimed that the upgrade could be optimized for SFC rather than thrust, the CFT's probably a cheaper way to get range.
 
For an increasingly thermally challenged aircraft, the last thing you need is more competition for inlet air.

I'm guessing some of the range gains from the CFTs come from the fact that they can un-toe the pylons
since stores hitting the EFTs or jettisoning EFTs hitting the fuselage won't be a problem.
 
The Sup Hornet is not a plane able to become a FA/XX no stealth , no supercruise , and no air/air superiority.
 
dark sidius said:
The Sup Hornet is not a plane able to become a FA/XX no stealth , no supercruise , and no air/air superiority.
Click to expand...

Quite right, I think that Boeing has already had experience of trying to sell an improved fighter as a stealth aircraft in the shape of the Advanced F-15, and guess what happened to that idea?
 
dark sidius said:
The Sup Hornet is not a plane able to become a FA/XX no stealth , no supercruise , and no air/air superiority.
Click to expand...

NAVAIR has not been making good decisions recently. I wouldn't say never. New engines, AESA, new AAMs, and passive sensors along with CFTs. The Navy gave up air superiority with the end of the Tomcat. Why do they want that mission back? The Navy is about power projection... "Hey rogue nation, we will park a carrier 300 miles off your coast and bomb you." Fleet defense from cruise missiles could be done with an advanced SH with new AAMs. I think I can count on one hand the number of times USN fighters have had to deal with enemy fighters in over 40 years. Not to mention the USNs F-35Cs and what they can bring to A2A.
 
Airplane said:
Fleet defense from cruise missiles could be done with an advanced SH with new AAMs.
Click to expand...

Or by AEGIS warships with SM-6 SAMs. The main reason for the decline in the importance of Fleet Air Defense as a Naval Aviation mission has been the great success of the AEGIS program in providing the same capability from surface ships.
 
Airplane said:
NAVAIR has not been making good decisions recently. I wouldn't say never. New engines, AESA, new AAMs, and passive sensors along with CFTs. The Navy gave up air superiority with the end of the Tomcat. Why do they want that mission back? The Navy is about power projection... "Hey rogue nation, we will park a carrier 300 miles off your coast and bomb you." Fleet defense from cruise missiles could be done with an advanced SH with new AAMs. I think I can count on one hand the number of times USN fighters have had to deal with enemy fighters in over 40 years. Not to mention the USNs F-35Cs and what they can bring to A2A.
Click to expand...

+1

NAVAIR doesn't really need to make decisions at this level. The AF is driving tech maturation and the Navy is going to say, "great, build us one with the strength for cats and traps."
 
marauder2048 said:
I'm guessing some of the range gains from the CFTs come from the fact that they can un-toe the pylons
Click to expand...

Is it weird that I'm looking forward to that?
 
Airplane said:
dark sidius said:
The Sup Hornet is not a plane able to become a FA/XX no stealth , no supercruise , and no air/air superiority.
Click to expand...

NAVAIR has not been making good decisions recently. I wouldn't say never. New engines, AESA, new AAMs, and passive sensors along with CFTs. The Navy gave up air superiority with the end of the Tomcat. Why do they want that mission back? The Navy is about power projection... "Hey rogue nation, we will park a carrier 300 miles off your coast and bomb you." Fleet defense from cruise missiles could be done with an advanced SH with new AAMs. I think I can count on one hand the number of times USN fighters have had to deal with enemy fighters in over 40 years. Not to mention the USNs F-35Cs and what they can bring to A2A.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the F-35C will give the Navy some useful capabilities but in terms of performance characteristics (range, payload, agility) it seems to largely be a duplication of the Super Hornet which to me suggests it isn't the aircraft the Navy should have ended up with. Of course it's still far better than nothing.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Airplane said:
dark sidius said:
The Sup Hornet is not a plane able to become a FA/XX no stealth , no supercruise , and no air/air superiority.
Click to expand...

NAVAIR has not been making good decisions recently. I wouldn't say never. New engines, AESA, new AAMs, and passive sensors along with CFTs. The Navy gave up air superiority with the end of the Tomcat. Why do they want that mission back? The Navy is about power projection... "Hey rogue nation, we will park a carrier 300 miles off your coast and bomb you." Fleet defense from cruise missiles could be done with an advanced SH with new AAMs. I think I can count on one hand the number of times USN fighters have had to deal with enemy fighters in over 40 years. Not to mention the USNs F-35Cs and what they can bring to A2A.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the F-35C will give the Navy some useful capabilities but in terms of performance characteristics (range, payload, agility) it seems to largely be a duplication of the Super Hornet which to me suggests it isn't the aircraft the Navy should have ended up with. Of course it's still far better than nothing.
Click to expand...

More than the A and B the C really needs that better engine people here talk about. 45 to 46000lbs of thrust would go along way to improving the Cs shortcomings.
 
Airplane said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Airplane said:
dark sidius said:
The Sup Hornet is not a plane able to become a FA/XX no stealth , no supercruise , and no air/air superiority.
Click to expand...

NAVAIR has not been making good decisions recently. I wouldn't say never. New engines, AESA, new AAMs, and passive sensors along with CFTs. The Navy gave up air superiority with the end of the Tomcat. Why do they want that mission back? The Navy is about power projection... "Hey rogue nation, we will park a carrier 300 miles off your coast and bomb you." Fleet defense from cruise missiles could be done with an advanced SH with new AAMs. I think I can count on one hand the number of times USN fighters have had to deal with enemy fighters in over 40 years. Not to mention the USNs F-35Cs and what they can bring to A2A.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the F-35C will give the Navy some useful capabilities but in terms of performance characteristics (range, payload, agility) it seems to largely be a duplication of the Super Hornet which to me suggests it isn't the aircraft the Navy should have ended up with. Of course it's still far better than nothing.
Click to expand...

More than the A and B the C really needs that better engine people here talk about. 45 to 46000lbs of thrust would go along way to improving the Cs shortcomings.
Click to expand...
Would the airframe have to be strengthened (wings, vertical tails) or just bolt the new engine right in? 10-15,000 lbs more thrust is current airframe able to handle it?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom