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

[bobbymike]

Just 15 Years Away

—John A. Tirpak2/10/2015

The Air Force is launching a study “to look at air superiority” in the 2030 timeframe, said Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements. There’s “a lot of work that’s already been done that we’ll bring together” under the study, to determine what control of the air looks like 15 years hence, Holmes told defense reporters at a Pentagon briefing on Feb. 6. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has made investments in underlying technologies and so has DOD, writ large, said Holmes. “We just don’t want to jump straight to the [analysis of alternatives] on the next airplane before we’ve looked across the range of ways to do, it,” he said. It’s hard to say how much the Air Force is spending on potential sixth generation fighter technologies because “there are things that might be applied” to more than one area, such as hypersonics, directed energy, and a new adaptive engine, said Holmes. “That’s part of why we haven’t lumped it together in a program,” he said. (See also Ahead of the New Offset Strategy and Defining Sixth Generation Fighters.)​​

 

[sferrin]

Lots to figure out. Just look how ATF evolved between 1975 and 1990.

 

[BDF]

Lots to figure out. Just look how ATF evolved between 1975 and 1990.

True, but I wish they'd aim for X plane demonstrators to fly in about ten years.

 

[sferrin]

Lots to figure out. Just look how ATF evolved between 1975 and 1990.

True, but I wish they'd aim for X plane demonstrators to fly in about ten years.

To test what specifically? They haven't decided what they need yet, how are they going to know what kind of demonstrator (if any) they'll need? For ATF they were looking at maneuverability, sensors, etc. which is how you ended up with things like AFTI-F-16/F-111, F-15 SMTD, X-29, etc.

 

[Grey Havoc]

If the F/A-XX is indeed going back to the future, as it were, then Boeing may yet find an unexpected advantage in gems from it's Rockwell heritage, such as this:

(h/t quellish)


Then again, there is an obvious ready made candidate for the F/A-XX role, though it would of course need modification:

(h/t InvisibleDefender)

 

[LowObservable]

Not that you'd know it from some posters, but the Navy has cut exactly ONE E-2D in 2019 while increasing its planned total order by 8 aircraft.

 

[sferrin]

Not that you'd know it from some posters, but the Navy has cut exactly ONE E-2D in 2019 while increasing its planned total order by 8 aircraft.

Relevance to the topic?

 

[jsport]

If the F/A-XX is indeed going back to the future, as it were, then Boeing may yet find an unexpected advantage in gems from it's Rockwell heritage, such as this:

Then again, there is an obvious ready made candidate for the F/A-XX role, though it would of course need modification:

(h/t InvisibleDefender)

Looks like the design is large enough for the plenty etc...et al growth, but how about the length fitting on the carrier elevator? Maybe limits on high angle turns too..

 

[Triton]

I deleted the posts to keep the peace.

 

[sferrin]

I deleted the posts to keep the peace.

Same here.

 

[Triton]

I deleted the posts to keep the peace.

Same here.

Thank you, sferrin, for keeping things civil over our disagreement. It is much appreciated.

 

[bobbymike]

If the F/A-XX is indeed going back to the future, as it were, then Boeing may yet find an unexpected advantage in gems from it's Rockwell heritage, such as this:

Then again, there is an obvious ready made candidate for the F/A-XX role, though it would of course need modification:

(h/t InvisibleDefender)

Mr. Havoc

Are those pictures/drawings from an ATF study? If so is it available? Thanks

On a separate note apropos of nothing always loved the look of the F-23 it screamed 'Next Generation'

 

[Grey Havoc]

Looks like the design is large enough for the plenty etc...et al growth, but how about the length fitting on the carrier elevator? Maybe limits on high angle turns too..

Well if they could operate the Vigilante off USN carriers... As for potential airflow issues, I think the base design had auxiliary scoops or something along those lines.

Mr. Havoc

Are those pictures/drawings from an ATF study? If so is it available? Thanks

On a separate note apropos of nothing always loved the look of the F-23 it screamed 'Next Generation'

Here you go:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a130709.pdf


pew pew pew!

 

[marauder2048]

Not that you'd know it from some posters, but the Navy has cut exactly ONE E-2D in 2019 while increasing its planned total order by 8 aircraft.

Please take it up with RADM William Lescher (Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Budget)

In FY16 we are able to increase our aircraft inventory by 36 from our FY15 plan, reflecting the restoral of 29 MH-60R helicopters associated with restoral of the USS George Washington refueling/overhaul and the tenth Air Wing, as well as the addition of two F-35Cs; however, over the next five years, we will experience a decrease of 16 F-35Cs, two E-2Ds, and nine RQ-21’s from the prior plan. We will also reduce our weapons inventory by 1,000 in order to align fielding profiles with updated aircraft integration timelines, and to focus funding on future capabilities given overall fiscal constraints.

Emphasis mine.

from

http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2015/02/02/department-of-navy-fiscal-year-fy16-budget-where-it-matters-when-it-matters-resourcing-the-navy-marine-corps-team/

 

[Sundog]

True, but I wish they'd aim for X plane demonstrators to fly in about ten years.

My understanding is DARPA is just beginning to work on X-Plane/Demonstrator requirements to fly proof of concept vehicles.

 

[jsport]

Looks like the design is large enough for the plenty etc...et al growth, but how about the length fitting on the carrier elevator? Maybe limits on high angle turns too..

Well if they could operate the Vigilante off USN carriers... As for potential airflow issues, I think the base design had auxiliary scoops or something along those lines.

[/quote]

all for a Vigilante like craft...capacity capacity and oh capacity.

 

[bobbymike]

Fledgling Air Force 6th-Gen Fighter Program Faces One-Year Delay Of Key Milestones

The Air Force's fiscal year 2016 budget delays by one year a key decision for its fledgling sixth-generation fighter aircraft program, postponing plans to seek a material development decision -- the point at which Pentagon leaders formally decide whether or not a new weapon system is required -- from the end of FY-15 to the end of FY-16.
==============================================================

Round Six Fighter

—John A. Tirpak2/11/2015

​Despite the completion in recent years of at least two analyses of alternatives indicating that it's time to start developing something to follow the F-22—which will start retiring in the 2030s—there's no program of record yet to do it. "We don't know what it looks like yet," Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said in an interview with Air Force Magazine last week. "I don't know if it's an airplane, or a system of things, or a cyber capability, or if it's space-based. I have no idea. But we need to be thinking about that now." Welsh said top Air Force leaders have been reluctant to settle on a platform because it may not be the appropriate approach. He's worried the service will get "tied in a knot" if it starts talking about sixth-generation fighters when it's still in the early stages of fielding the fifth-generation F-35. It's not yet time to spend "billions" on the concept, he said, at least not until he gets answers to: "what is it, really, and how much of it do you need?" Maj. Gen. James Martin, USAF budget director, said last week the funds for sixth gen are "scattered around" the service's various science and technology and research and development accounts, but are not yet focused on a single effort.

 

[Flyaway]

Posted in error.

 

[sferrin]

Fledgling Air Force 6th-Gen Fighter Program Faces One-Year Delay Of Key Milestones

The Air Force's fiscal year 2016 budget delays by one year a key decision for its fledgling sixth-generation fighter aircraft program, postponing plans to seek a material development decision -- the point at which Pentagon leaders formally decide whether or not a new weapon system is required -- from the end of FY-15 to the end of FY-16.
==============================================================

Round Six Fighter

—John A. Tirpak2/11/2015

​Despite the completion in recent years of at least two analyses of alternatives indicating that it's time to start developing something to follow the F-22—which will start retiring in the 2030s—there's no program of record yet to do it. "We don't know what it looks like yet," Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said in an interview with Air Force Magazine last week. "I don't know if it's an airplane, or a system of things, or a cyber capability, or if it's space-based. I have no idea. But we need to be thinking about that now." Welsh said top Air Force leaders have been reluctant to settle on a platform because it may not be the appropriate approach. He's worried the service will get "tied in a knot" if it starts talking about sixth-generation fighters when it's still in the early stages of fielding the fifth-generation F-35. It's not yet time to spend "billions" on the concept, he said, at least not until he gets answers to: "what is it, really, and how much of it do you need?" Maj. Gen. James Martin, USAF budget director, said last week the funds for sixth gen are "scattered around" the service's various science and technology and research and development accounts, but are not yet focused on a single effort.

One thing's for certain, they better get their security problems figured out if they don't want China fielding our 6th gen before we do.

 

[marauder2048]

More AF thinking on F-35/F-22 follow-on

at:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1742

While it is “prudent to think about what comes next,” Holmes said, the military has to avoid the traps of traditional thinking. The tendency is to build a “little bit better F-35 or even a leap ahead F-35 or F-22” rather than “think about the right approach to solve problems.”

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert shares that view. In a presentation at an Office of Naval Research conference last week, he observed that advanced stealth fighters are not a silver bullet. Holmes said the CNO makes a valid point. “Our analysis says that with modern integrated air defense systems, stealth is necessary but may not be sufficient.”

Emphasis Mine.

Full article attached as pdf.

 

[quellish]

The argument is that it's difficult to make stealth last.
Aircraft we buy today are expected to remain in service for longer and longer periods of time. Over that lifetime threats change, but it can be difficult to alter the signature of the aircraft to meet those changing threats. It can also be difficult to maintain a given signature - suppliers for special materials or avionics go out of business, etc. For this and other reasons DoD is reexamining priorities for aircraft survivability.

 

[DrRansom]

Would that lead to a greater emphasis on speed / stand-off missiles?

 

[bobbymike]

The argument is that it's difficult to make stealth last.
Aircraft we buy today are expected to remain in service for longer and longer periods of time. Over that lifetime threats change, but it can be difficult to alter the signature of the aircraft to meet those changing threats. It can also be difficult to maintain a given signature - suppliers for special materials or avionics go out of business, etc. For this and other reasons DoD is reexamining priorities for aircraft survivability.

From the Air Warfare Symposium ACC Chief says stealth still incredibly important but one of many technologies needed for future 6th Gen.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/acc-chief-stealth-incredibly-important-next-usaf-fighter

Air Warfare Symposium 2015 Live Stream

http://dodnews.defense.gov/LiveStream4.aspx

 

[Flyaway]

Would that lead to a greater emphasis on speed / stand-off missiles?

Hence the seeming interest in hypersonics.

 

[tacitblue]

The argument is that it's difficult to make stealth last.

Which is why the USN ain't placing it's bet on the -35/derivative_thereof for its next fighter. Taking LO out of the picture, it's an aircraft with early 1970s performance. They should only hope the USMC doesn't ask for a STOVL version of the -XX!

 

[DrRansom]

Would that lead to a greater emphasis on speed / stand-off missiles?

Hence the seeming interest in hypersonics.

Hypersonic aircraft won't be ready in a decade and half, at the current rate of development I'd be happy to see a reusable drone by 2030.

Perhaps a better question is:

does the decline in stealth relative importance lead to USAF considering high Mach cruising aircraft, say 2 - 3 supercruise.

 

[Avimimus]

The argument is that it's difficult to make stealth last.

Which is why the USN ain't placing it's bet on the -35/derivative_thereof for its next fighter. Taking LO out of the picture, it's an aircraft with early 1970s performance. They should only hope the USMC doesn't ask for a STOVL version of the -XX!

That really isn't true. The JSF has much more situational awareness due to advanced sensors, target tracking/counter-measures and information sharing with other platforms. In this respect (and a number of others) it is superior to the F-22 and almost all other prospective platforms. Performance is also superior in a number of areas compared to medium fighters from the past.


The problem is that it could become very vulnerable in the face of anti-low-observability countermeasures (improved radars and information sharing among the OPFOR) if it isn't combined with other assets such as dedicated interceptors and/or flown in large numbers within a restrictive airspace. So, if I were purchasing aircraft for the European theatre I would prefer the F-35 to the F-22. However, if I were a small nation expecting to put an airforce of 30 F-35 against a mix of of Su-35BM and PAK-FA I would want a dedicated interceptor.


This is actually a problem for any small airforce fielding only medium fighters - against platforms with higher sustained speeds it becomes impossible to 'pick the engagement'. High performance interceptors could fly patrol patterns that will eventually catch one of your flights from behind, and can manage their range as they please. I'd draw an analogy to the last fight of Werner Voss in WWI - having the superior skill and the superior weapon system doesn't count if you don't have the opportunity to retreat in the face of local superiority in numbers.

 

[GTX]

The argument is that it's difficult to make stealth last.

Which is why the USN ain't placing it's bet on the -35/derivative_thereof for its next fighter. Taking LO out of the picture, it's an aircraft with early 1970s performance. They should only hope the USMC doesn't ask for a STOVL version of the -XX!

That really isn't true. The JSF has much more situational awareness due to advanced sensors, target tracking/counter-measures and information sharing with other platforms. In this respect (and a number of others) it is superior to the F-22 and almost all other prospective platforms. Performance is also superior in a number of areas compared to medium fighters from the past.

Exactly.

 

[LowObservable]

The JSF has much more situational awareness due to advanced sensors, target tracking/counter-measures and information sharing with other platforms. In this respect (and a number of others) it is superior to the F-22 and almost all other prospective platforms.

Absent details of JAS 39E, Rafale F3R and F-35 that are quite properly classified, that is a claim that cannot be refuted. Unfortunately it cannot be supported either.

 

[sferrin]

The JSF has much more situational awareness due to advanced sensors, target tracking/counter-measures and information sharing with other platforms. In this respect (and a number of others) it is superior to the F-22 and almost all other prospective platforms.

Absent details of JAS 39E, Rafale F3R and F-35 that are quite properly classified, that is a claim that cannot be refuted. Unfortunately it cannot be supported either.

Pretty sure an F-22 won't be tracking a ballistic missile at 800 miles with it's missile warning system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-A6PWRFno

 

[Flyaway]

Would that lead to a greater emphasis on speed / stand-off missiles?

Hence the seeming interest in hypersonics.

Hypersonic aircraft won't be ready in a decade and half, at the current rate of development I'd be happy to see a reusable drone by 2030.

Perhaps a better question is:

does the decline in stealth relative importance lead to USAF considering high Mach cruising aircraft, say 2 - 3 supercruise.

Maybe a little sooner if someone gave REL a definite contract for their engine technology.

 

[BDF]

Lots to figure out. Just look how ATF evolved between 1975 and 1990.

True, but I wish they'd aim for X plane demonstrators to fly in about ten years.

To test what specifically? They haven't decided what they need yet, how are they going to know what kind of demonstrator (if any) they'll need? For ATF they were looking at maneuverability, sensors, etc. which is how you ended up with things like AFTI-F-16/F-111, F-15 SMTD, X-29, etc.

I get that, my point is that I wish we were further along in the process.

 

[red admiral]

Pretty sure an F-22 won't be tracking a ballistic missile at 800 miles with it's missile warning system.

Tracking a BM at long range is very easy with only small sensors e.g. ~1kg because a BM plume is very hot ( many 100s deg K) and thermal radiation increases proportional to T^4.

This does not correspond to being able to track a fighter (300K) at tactically useful ranges as is claimed for the newer generation of IRSTs (e.g. PIRATE). This shouldn't come as a surprise given the much larger aperture size of a dedicated IRST compared to the smaller staring sensors in the JSF DAS.


Its not possible to compare JSF sensor and fusion capabilities against other platforms becuase of the lack of information. I'm sure that on JSF this will be very good and probably the best of the current fighters - but there is no proof for this. What is important to note is that that sensors and fusion are not latent abilities to JSF - they are also present on or can be added to other platforms.

LO is still going to be useful going forwards but it does place compromises on the design (e.g.limited internal weapons). A different shuffling of priorities might be best for the future battlespace.

 

[donnage99]

Pretty sure an F-22 won't be tracking a ballistic missile at 800 miles with it's missile warning system.

Tracking missiles during this flight stage isn't really that hard, but more importantly, needed of the f-35. The video is meant for PR purpose more than anything.

 

[sferrin]

Tracking missiles during this flight stage isn't really that hard,

It is if you don't have the requisite sensors on board.

but more importantly, needed of the f-35.

All information it acquires will be fed into the "cloud". That includes ballistic missile track information.

The video is meant for PR purpose more than anything.

That goes without saying. It doesn't change the fact that A. It's got the capability, and B. it's useful.[/quote][/quote]

 

[bobbymike]

Pretty sure an F-22 won't be tracking a ballistic missile at 800 miles with it's missile warning system.

Tracking missiles during this flight stage isn't really that hard, but more importantly, needed of the f-35. The video is meant for PR purpose more than anything.

I also seem to recall the F-35 being able to detect and pinpoint individual artillery firing from tactically significant ranges. Now the issue with sensor 'fusion' it to detect, track, geo-locate, identify AND strike so detection without the other parts is useless.

 

[LowObservable]

All well and good, but (1) we don't know whether or when BMD surveillance and counter-artillery HFD will be operational on the F-35 and (2) the assumption is being made that spherical or part-spherical staring IIR is, or will be unique to F-35.


Also, if you could really use a compact staring IR system to provide tactically useful BMD warning at >500 miles, you'd put it on a Reaper.

 

[sferrin]

All well and good, but (1) we don't know whether or when BMD surveillance and counter-artillery HFD will be operational on the F-35 and (2) the assumption is being made that spherical or part-spherical staring IIR is, or will be unique to F-35.


Also, if you could really use a compact staring IR system to provide tactically useful BMD warning at >500 miles, you'd put it on a Reaper.

Sure, if you were going to build a dedicated system just for that mission. But if the functionality is already there on another aircraft is there a reason you wouldn't want to take advantage of it?

 

[bobbymike]

All well and good, but (1) we don't know whether or when BMD surveillance and counter-artillery HFD will be operational on the F-35 and (2) the assumption is being made that spherical or part-spherical staring IIR is, or will be unique to F-35.


Also, if you could really use a compact staring IR system to provide tactically useful BMD warning at >500 miles, you'd put it on a Reaper.

Sure, if you were going to build a dedicated system just for that mission. But if the functionality is already there on another aircraft is there a reason you wouldn't want to take advantage of it?

It is rewriting strike fighter concepts of operations because of what it sensors can do and see which no other fighter can do, I am convinced all the continued (and growing IMHO) international sales are other nations seeing what a truly multi-spectrum total immersive sensor fusion platform can do.

 

[LowObservable]

multi-spectrum total immersive sensor fusion platform

Define please.