USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis [2008- 2025]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please remember the forum guidance against UFOs, Bigfoots/ Bigfeet etc.
And on the off chance the US actually has anything like this technology on what rational basis/ evidence are you saying their is any indication that it’s going to be incorporated into the general 6th generation US combat aircraft fleet?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kaiserd said:
Please remember the forum guidance against UFOs, Bigfoots/ Bigfeet etc.
And on the off chance the US actually has anything like this technology on what rational basis/ evidence are you saying their is any indication that it’s going to be incorporated into the general 6th generation US combat aircraft fleet?
Click to expand...
I can see that you are clearly triggered. But I will just leave this right here.
www.forbes.com

U.S. Navy Laser Creates Plasma ‘UFOs’

The Navy has patented technology to create mid-air images to fool infrared and other sensors, offering a game-changing method of protecting aircraft from heat-seeking missiles. It may also provide a clue about the source of some recent UFO sightings by military aircraft.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
Last edited:
Flyaway said:
Could just as easily be the infamous SR-72.
Click to expand...

I hope it is the SR-72, there has been no news reports lately about the progress of the SR-72 I have always assumed that it had either been cancelled or been buried deep into the "Black World" to protect it from prying eyes.
 
bobbymike said:
news.usni.org

Report to Congress on Air Force Next-Generation Air Dominance Program - USNI News

The following is the June 23, 2022 Congressional Research Service In Focus report, Air Force Next-Generation Air Dominance Program. From the report According to the Air Force, the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program is intended to develop “a portfolio of technologies enabling air...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...
This reliance on drones for air superiority scares me. Its never been proven. So rushing into it seems frought with risk that could be mitigated with a manned platform meanwhile progressing progressively towards drones.

I hope they don't throw away the baby with the bathwater on the manned component of ngad and it's something that can't double as a fighter when called on.

Why not develop a smallish or medium size single without the a2g whizbang electronics that can eventually be unmanned? Why not something like the 35 but dedicated for air combat without the space for 4000lbs of bombs?

The dollars I've seen floated certainly seem like they could do it this way.

I think drones are the future but I fear we're not there yet. For some reason it seems drones for ground strike are within reach, but air combat is so fluid and i don't the tech is perfected yet. It seems for air combat they are just moving the human element off board which opens up defeating a drone force just by jamming communications and in not ready to believe we're quite there with flying terminators.
 
Last edited:
They have all those F-35s and are committed to the Raptor for a while know. If it’s proceeded this far the technology is likely far beyond what we think. Bae Taranis can apparently pick out targets in its own and apparently it works very well. It might just be the future showed up without anyone noticing and it’s ready for its shift.
 
rooster said:
I think drones are the future but I fear we're not there yet. For some reason it seems drones for ground strike are within reach, but air combat is so fluid and i don't the tech is perfected yet. It seems for air combat they are just moving the human element off board which opens up defeating a drone force just by jamming communications and in not ready to believe we're quite there with flying terminators.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that point rooster, I personally don't see fully autonomous drones just yet either, the manned fighter will be with us for a while yet.
 
www.airforcemag.com

Kendall Dispenses With Roper’s Quick NGAD Rhythm; System is Too Complex | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The crewed Next Generation Air Dominance airplane won’t follow timetables calling for versions to be fielded every five years or so.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com

A “centuries series” fighter style acquisition plan is apparently being dispensed of for the manned fighter component of the NGAD, given the sophistication and complexity of the system.

Interestingly, the manned fighter component of NGAD is still in competition even as it’s in EMD. It’s been mentioned that in some recent programs, competitors have advanced as far as CDR.
 
Last edited:
I have an idea for one of the offset variants. It would be Unmanned/Manned. But from the ground or the carrier. I can’t exactly remember what aircraft they did it in but they had developed a helmet that replaced the cockpit and floor with outside imaging. Like a VR headset. For better visibility and Aircraft tracking. What if they could do a dedicated Air combat variant that could be controlled from the ground without the pilot experiencing near fatal G’s?and with a 360 degree view outside the aircraft with all of the flight data implemented in? Just an idea. It would probably be the most precise and deadly aircraft in the world if they could dial it in.

Tell me your thoughts.

I can practically hear you guys slapping out one to two paragraphs on why this would be impossible/impractical/too expensive but it’s just an idea lmao
 
Last edited:
Conspirator said:
I can’t exactly remember what aircraft they did it in but they had developed a helmet that replaced the cockpit and floor with outside imaging. Like a VR headset.
Click to expand...

That's the F-35A/B/C you are thinking of Conspirator, it is not quite Virtual Reality yet, but does it through the aircrafts sensors where the pilot can look through the floor and see the ground below.
 
FighterJock said:
Conspirator said:
I can’t exactly remember what aircraft they did it in but they had developed a helmet that replaced the cockpit and floor with outside imaging. Like a VR headset.
Click to expand...

That's the F-35A/B/C you are thinking of Conspirator, it is not quite Virtual Reality yet, but does it through the aircrafts sensors where the pilot can look through the floor and see the ground below.
Click to expand...
Ok thank you I knew I had heard of this tech but wasn’t sure where. But you know what I mean. Just implement the same technology in an unmanned, camera operated, dedicated fighter. It’s perfect. As escorts of course. You could also make a long distance strike package aircraft such as the predator drone. But with multi role capabilities. Kind of like the SU-75 Checkmate.
 
rooster said:
bobbymike said:
news.usni.org

Report to Congress on Air Force Next-Generation Air Dominance Program - USNI News

The following is the June 23, 2022 Congressional Research Service In Focus report, Air Force Next-Generation Air Dominance Program. From the report According to the Air Force, the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program is intended to develop “a portfolio of technologies enabling air...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...
This reliance on drones for air superiority scares me. Its never been proven. So rushing into it seems frought with risk that could be mitigated with a manned platform meanwhile progressing progressively towards drones.

I hope they don't throw away the baby with the bathwater on the manned component of ngad and it's something that can't double as a fighter when called on.
Click to expand...

Probably that is why there will be an important & expensive manned 'platform', which will be augmented by several UCAVs & 'unmanned wingmen' who will have to prove their functionality & loyalty (and maybe also their ethics) in real circumstances.
Personally I´m convinced the NGAD manned 'platform' still has several/many fighter-like characteristics and isn´t a 'B-21-sized flying control & storage room', even if it will cost "several million dollars" a copy.

"It’s a more complicated operation to have a manned aircraft that will be the follow-on to the F-22."
"“It’s not a simple design,” he emphasized."
"It’s a “long, hard job to build” an aircraft like the F-35 that represents “a whole generation of better capability” than the aircraft it replaces, Kendall asserted."
 
The BAE P.125 would have had an enclosed cockpit with totally synthetic view of the outside. Similar idea.
 
Conspirator said:
I have an idea for one of the offset variants. It would be Unmanned/Manned. But from the ground or the carrier. I can’t exactly remember what aircraft they did it in but they had developed a helmet that replaced the cockpit and floor with outside imaging. Like a VR headset. For better visibility and Aircraft tracking. What if they could do a dedicated Air combat variant that could be controlled from the ground without the pilot experiencing near fatal G’s?and with a 360 degree view outside the aircraft with all of the flight data implemented in? Just an idea. It would probably be the most precise and deadly aircraft in the world if they could dial it in.

Tell me your thoughts.

I can practically hear you guys slapping out one to two paragraphs on why this would be impossible/impractical/too expensive but it’s just an idea lmao
Click to expand...
Controlled from the ground means jammable. Controlled from the ground means taking out 1 control station takes out dozens or more unmanned vehicles. There is no such thing as jamproof radio energy.

I work in automotive on the cutting edge autonomous driving tech. Believe me, its FROUGHT with issues... Just making a car drive straight without hitting something or steering off the road. Its so easily spoofed in tests that you people don't hear about because the manufacturers will literally end your career it you yet caught talking. Putting this "cutting edge" in the sky with missiles is a BAD idea.

This rush to drones is going to be the mistake of the century like eliminating guns and fielding small bombers instead of fighters.
 
While I agree that some reports of the imminent total replacement of manned combat aircraft with unmanned ones have been overblown your own comments are similarly overblown in the other direction.

By your logic guided weapons including/ especially cruise missiles should also be not relied on/ not trusted.

Effective “loyal wingman” UCAVs (or “lone wolve” UCAVs will require a high degree of autonomy, redundancy and security.
It’s incredibly simplistic (and essentially wrong) to present them as going to be “controlled from the ground”.
They are going to have to be very well designed and this is going to be challenging area but it’s going to about the implementation, not really the concept.
 
I was under the impression that the future UCAVs will fly without ground control.
 
Conspirator said:
FighterJock said:
Conspirator said:
I can’t exactly remember what aircraft they did it in but they had developed a helmet that replaced the cockpit and floor with outside imaging. Like a VR headset.
Click to expand...

That's the F-35A/B/C you are thinking of Conspirator, it is not quite Virtual Reality yet, but does it through the aircrafts sensors where the pilot can look through the floor and see the ground below.
Click to expand...
Ok thank you I knew I had heard of this tech but wasn’t sure where. But you know what I mean. Just implement the same technology in an unmanned, camera operated, dedicated fighter. It’s perfect. As escorts of course. You could also make a long distance strike package aircraft such as the predator drone. But with multi role capabilities. Kind of like the SU-75 Checkmate.
Click to expand...
Until your link gets jammed.
 
All of these futuristic unmanned aircraft will, in fact, be "flown from the ground", whether or not they have data links and ground-based pilots. They differ from the older "Remotely Piloted Vehicles" only in that the operators are remote in time as well as space.

So-called "artificial intelligence" is nothing of the sort, at least at present. Attempts to accurately model human intelligence turned out to be difficult early on, when research showed that the human brain is not an electrical switch network akin to a digital computer. So industry focused on so-called "expert systems" that seemed to offer more immediate commercial returns at lower cost. These are, in effect, large data bases with large stores of information about known situations and various kinds of pattern-matching algorithms for comparing encountered situations with stored ones deciding on a best match. They are as good as the data and the algorithms that their developers choose for them.

AI systems are not intelligent in the sense that they replicate human thought. They can give the appearance of human-like output, but only in a limited domain. They are thus directly analogous to those 18th-century, clockwork dolls that go through the motions of writing a letter and produce the same text, every time. Consider one of the "AI" breakthroughs of recent years: defeating a human master at chess. The "AI" was highly specialized and very expensive. It stored every variation of every game ever played in a catalog and had a fast processor optimized for comparing chess moves. It compared every move in the current game to every more in every historical variation, and used some sophisticated math to chose the best match. Studies have shown that a human master does nothing reemotely like this.The master compares the current state of the game with, at most, a couple of past games that he or she happens to remember. What the master does thereafter is still little understood. All we can say is that the master holds his or her own at chess much of the time, despite a smaller memory and much slower computation speed. Plus, the master beats the same "AI" hands down at calling a cab, heading home, and picking up Chinese take-out on the way--whatever intelligence a human chess master has is not dedicated entirely to the domain of playing of chess.

So why, you ask, does this mean that a "Loyal Wing Man" will be flown from the ground? The answer is that the "AI" vehicle is flown by its programmers, years in advance of the flight itself. It's abilities as a combat pilot will depend entirely on the limited foreknowledge and prejudices of those that write the aircraft's requirements and the corresponding limitations of the programmers when it comes to interpreting the requirements and implementing them in code. The "Loyal Wing Man's" ability to make decisions in combat, on the fly, will thus depend on the circumstances that his developers were able to anticipate and encode during the decade before. Getting anything wrong in the data set, the programming, or both can produce unexpected and disproportionate outcomes. We have already seen what can happen: when pale-skinned developers collected data from the largely pale-skinned community where they lived and developed an "AI" facial-recognition system, their product could not tell dark-skinned people apart. The AI's current performance was literally prejudiced by unrecognized selective biases years before.

So I don't think that the reliability and usefulness of guided munitions tells us anything about "Loyal Wing Men". The two' aren't really comparable. Guided munitions are not autonomous to any significant degree. They operate using a very limited range of sensor inputs and make very simple decisions based on ultimate targeting decisions made by human weapons operators--a very limited domain. "Loyal Wing Men" will require vastly greater autonomy. They will have to vastly expand the capabilities of a chess-playing "AI" in a vastly more complicated domain, the physical world.

For the foreseeable future, I suspect that this task will far exceed the capabilities of the real "Loyal Pilots" sitting at their desktop computer workstations, writing code, and trying to get the future right while filtering out the unconscious prejudices of the past and present. The danger is that commercial pressures, politics, and the typically ill-informed enthusiasms of leaders will push such programs far beyond the real state of the art and force shortcuts and cosmetic fixes to the real problems of developing artificial intelligences.

The current history of "AI' is not reassuring. The vendor sells the glamour of the concept to management, not the real capabilities of implementation. "AI" becomes a requirement in a contract, rather than a possible implementation of a requirement. Neither the buyer's nor the vendor's executives bother to define what "AI" is, because no one currently has a viable definition and because that would just slow everything down. The engineers scratch their heads and develop what they can within the budgets and time schedules that they have been arbitrarilly granted. They start running out of time and money. So features are cut, testing is reduced, people are laid off, and everything is rushed. The result is the kind of "AI" that is all around us already. It reads our resumes and rejects our job applications without human oversight--and does so essentially randomly. It decides that we are the same person as someone whose records reside next to ours in the database and merges our medical records even though the other person resides 1000 miles away. In a traffic stop, it decides that two dark faces are the same, and causes the arrest of an innocent man. It misinterprets a sensor reading, overrides pilot controls, and flies an airliner full of people into the ground.
 
You do realize there has been an actual AI vs human dogfight test by the USAF and that the AI won all five times, right? AIs now can beat every chess master. How they beat every chess master isn’t particularly relevant. In an era of terabyte thumb drives I’m confident every piece of aerial combat history can cheaply reside in any given drone.

But that isn’t even probably where loyal wingman is going initially. It seems far more likely to me that they will act as stand off sensor and EW platforms that have a much less demanding role of holding formation forward of the manned aircraft and providing target info, cover jamming, and if necessary, serve as decoys. They might also have a short range A2A capability eventually but I suspect initially their role will be more conservative. This is easily within the capability of current tech…an AI with a MADL will be given a behavior directive by the manned platform (recon/decoy/pit bull, etc) and it will operate within those directives even if the link is cut. This isn’t as challenging as being a stand alone offensive platform with no human input; it’s basically just a combat Rumba.
 
Josh_TN said:
You do realize there has been an actual AI vs human dogfight test by the USAF and that the AI won all five times, right?
Click to expand...
But that was in a simulator, it wasn't a live package fitted into a real UCAV and actually operating in real 3D space or reliant on a potentially vulnerable datalink. Indeed DARPA stated that it was possibly being 10 years away from being ready to actually 'fly' a fighter in combat.
There were some flaws, such as not observing 500ft separation distances which meant that in real combat some of those AI drones (having been programmed as 'expendable') would have flown through debris fields from their kills and actually risk damaging or downing themselves in the process. A Loyal Wingman has to be loyal and on your wing, if it dies in its own fratricide then its not really useful as a reliable wingman.

The software has to be run in the UCAV unless you want to jam up the network so that adds cost to the drone. If it is shot down, potentially your adversary can access the AI system and find out its weaknesses. That means programming it make sure its not expendable and therefore the AI must be as concerned about its own life preservation as a human and therefore desist from Hollywood epic style stunts. It can probably still perform better in dogfights than a fighter constrained by human physiology but it might blunt the edge.
Besides wouldn't a smart AI think that dogfighting is a waste of effort and no go for the long-range sniper kill if it could? One of the AI systems tested went in for the close-in cannon kill option every time, but is that necessarily the best way? Yes these systems learn but are they necessarily learning the best methods? Lots of work to be done I feel before we can elevate these from high-end gaming software to real fighter pilot brains.
 
Hood said:
But that was in a simulator, it wasn't a live package fitted into a real UCAV and actually operating in real 3D space or reliant on a potentially vulnerable datalink. Indeed DARPA stated that it was possibly being 10 years away from being ready to actually 'fly' a fighter in combat.
There were some flaws, such as not observing 500ft separation distances which meant that in real combat some of those AI drones (having been programmed as 'expendable') would have flown through debris fields from their kills and actually risk damaging or downing themselves in the process. A Loyal Wingman has to be loyal and on your wing, if it dies in its own fratricide then its not really useful as a reliable wingman.

The software has to be run in the UCAV unless you want to jam up the network so that adds cost to the drone. If it is shot down, potentially your adversary can access the AI system and find out its weaknesses. That means programming it make sure its not expendable and therefore the AI must be as concerned about its own life preservation as a human and therefore desist from Hollywood epic style stunts. It can probably still perform better in dogfights than a fighter constrained by human physiology but it might blunt the edge.
Besides wouldn't a smart AI think that dogfighting is a waste of effort and no go for the long-range sniper kill if it could? One of the AI systems tested went in for the close-in cannon kill option every time, but is that necessarily the best way? Yes these systems learn but are they necessarily learning the best methods? Lots of work to be done I feel before we can elevate these from high-end gaming software to real fighter pilot brains.
Click to expand...
But if the UCAV is flown by AI, the data link is less relevant, not that most modern fighters don't have datalinks with each other and the ground anyway.
 
rooster said:
I think drones are the future but I fear we're not there yet. For some reason it seems drones for ground strike are within reach, but air combat is so fluid and i don't the tech is perfected yet. It seems for air combat they are just moving the human element off board which opens up defeating a drone force just by jamming communications and in not ready to believe we're quite there with flying terminators.
Click to expand...

One doesn't solve difficult problems unless one works on difficult problems.

Let's hope they're following the B-21 model - break the problem into separate elements, build what you can, and plan for incremental improvement in systems.
 
mitchellinstituteaerospaceadvantage.podbean.com

Episode 77 - Closing the Weapons Gap: New Missile Technology Imperatives

Episode 77 – Closing the Weapons Gap: New Missile Technology Imperatives Episode Summary: In episode 77 of the Aerospace Advantage, Closing the Weapons Gap: New Missile Technology Imperatives, host John “Slick” Baum talks to Lt Gen Gus Guastella, Deputy Ch...
mitchellinstituteaerospaceadvantage.podbean.com mitchellinstituteaerospaceadvantage.podbean.com
 
rooster said:
This reliance on drones for air superiority scares me. Its never been proven. So rushing into it seems frought with risk that could be mitigated with a manned platform meanwhile progressing progressively towards drones.

I hope they don't throw away the baby with the bathwater on the manned component of ngad and it's something that can't double as a fighter when called on.

Why not develop a smallish or medium size single without the a2g whizbang electronics that can eventually be unmanned? Why not something like the 35 but dedicated for air combat without the space for 4000lbs of bombs?

The dollars I've seen floated certainly seem like they could do it this way.

I think drones are the future but I fear we're not there yet. For some reason it seems drones for ground strike are within reach, but air combat is so fluid and i don't the tech is perfected yet. It seems for air combat they are just moving the human element off board which opens up defeating a drone force just by jamming communications and in not ready to believe we're quite there with flying terminators.
Click to expand...

You should at least entertain the possibility that the US has been evaluating the feasibility of this for decades..
 
In_A_Dream said:
rooster said:
This reliance on drones for air superiority scares me. Its never been proven. So rushing into it seems frought with risk that could be mitigated with a manned platform meanwhile progressing progressively towards drones.

I hope they don't throw away the baby with the bathwater on the manned component of ngad and it's something that can't double as a fighter when called on.

Why not develop a smallish or medium size single without the a2g whizbang electronics that can eventually be unmanned? Why not something like the 35 but dedicated for air combat without the space for 4000lbs of bombs?

The dollars I've seen floated certainly seem like they could do it this way.

I think drones are the future but I fear we're not there yet. For some reason it seems drones for ground strike are within reach, but air combat is so fluid and i don't the tech is perfected yet. It seems for air combat they are just moving the human element off board which opens up defeating a drone force just by jamming communications and in not ready to believe we're quite there with flying terminators.
Click to expand...

You should at least entertain the possibility that the US has been evaluating the feasibility of this for decades..
Click to expand...
But where is the execution with trials with real hardware? Thought experiments are great, but no substitute for trial and error. What's the big deal with keeping a human in a cockpit? It overcomes many issues with drones and you can't tell me life support is going to break the bank with unit cost.
 
rooster said:
But where is the execution with trials with real hardware? Thought experiments are great, but no substitute for trial and error. What's the big deal with keeping a human in a cockpit? It overcomes many issues with drones and you can't tell me life support is going to break the bank with unit cost.
Click to expand...

190729180521-rural-nevada-not-ready-for-area-51-raid.jpg
 
Hood said:
Josh_TN said:
You do realize there has been an actual AI vs human dogfight test by the USAF and that the AI won all five times, right?
Click to expand...
But that was in a simulator, it wasn't a live package fitted into a real UCAV and actually operating in real 3D space or reliant on a potentially vulnerable datalink. Indeed DARPA stated that it was possibly being 10 years away from being ready to actually 'fly' a fighter in combat.
There were some flaws, such as not observing 500ft separation distances which meant that in real combat some of those AI drones (having been programmed as 'expendable') would have flown through debris fields from their kills and actually risk damaging or downing themselves in the process. A Loyal Wingman has to be loyal and on your wing, if it dies in its own fratricide then its not really useful as a reliable wingman.

The software has to be run in the UCAV unless you want to jam up the network so that adds cost to the drone. If it is shot down, potentially your adversary can access the AI system and find out its weaknesses. That means programming it make sure its not expendable and therefore the AI must be as concerned about its own life preservation as a human and therefore desist from Hollywood epic style stunts. It can probably still perform better in dogfights than a fighter constrained by human physiology but it might blunt the edge.
Besides wouldn't a smart AI think that dogfighting is a waste of effort and no go for the long-range sniper kill if it could? One of the AI systems tested went in for the close-in cannon kill option every time, but is that necessarily the best way? Yes these systems learn but are they necessarily learning the best methods? Lots of work to be done I feel before we can elevate these from high-end gaming software to real fighter pilot brains.
Click to expand...
Actually, AI has been tested outside the simulator, just not how you would anticipate. AI was in control of the aircraft in a dogfight environment, but with a pilot in the cockpit for the "just in case".
 
djfawcett said:
Actually, AI has been tested outside the simulator, just not how you would anticipate. AI was in control of the aircraft in a dogfight environment, but with a pilot in the cockpit for the "just in case".
Click to expand...

It is the "just in case" part that I do not like about future UCAVs, all it takes is one line of faulty software code in the computer that controls the AI and you have the possibility of an Uninhibited fighter going crazy.
 
FighterJock said:
djfawcett said:
Actually, AI has been tested outside the simulator, just not how you would anticipate. AI was in control of the aircraft in a dogfight environment, but with a pilot in the cockpit for the "just in case".
Click to expand...

It is the "just in case" part that I do not like about future UCAVs, all it takes is one line of faulty software code in the computer that controls the AI and you have the possibility of an Uninhibited fighter going crazy.
Click to expand...
Arjen said:
Uninhibited - indeed. Rogue AI.
Click to expand...
....Come on people, this is why you install killswitches and such. Yes yes, "But what if the enemy gets inside your network!", well if the enemy gets that deep inside your stuff that they can use killswitches and such, you're up shit creek anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom