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

[bobbymike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laKprX-HP94

LO - 2:18 to 2:40 relevant passage, just insert multi-spectrum total immersive sensor fusion platform for Risk Management

 

[phrenzy]

You have to ask Pierre Sprey's question on this though, why not take that apparently great sensor and sensor fusion technology and put it in a decent airframe?

Plus the fact that the systems aren't modular causes problems:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-the-f-35s-targeting-system-really-10-years-behind-cu-1676442535

I would be very interested to know how much of the experience of the efficacy of upgrading 4th Gen fighters with pods and packs vs the difficulty of finding space inside stealthy 5th Gen platforms for upgrades is driving the system of systems approach to LRS-B and f/a-xx.

 

[dark sidius]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9_JczaIIAAvxhU.jpg The same Boeing concept beautiful plane.

 

[sferrin]

You have to ask Pierre Sprey's question on this though, why not take that apparently great sensor and sensor fusion technology and put it in a decent airframe?

Plus the fact that the systems aren't modular causes problems:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-the-f-35s-targeting-system-really-10-years-behind-cu-1676442535

I would be very interested to know how much of the experience of the efficacy of upgrading 4th Gen fighters with pods and packs vs the difficulty of finding space inside stealthy 5th Gen platforms for upgrades is driving the system of systems approach to LRS-B and f/a-xx.

Ugh. Pods are band-aids, and poor ones at that from a signature perspective.

 

[tacitblue]

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

And the US needs 1700 aircraft designated as fighters that can track ballistic missiles at 800 miles? Just more evidence that they stuffed a lot of crap on the JSF plate that eroded A2A ability. They put everything they could into it except for kinematics... kinematics were expendable because of LO and sensors.

 

[sferrin]

And the US needs 1700 aircraft designated as fighters that can track ballistic missiles at 800 miles? Just more evidence that they stuffed a lot of crap on the JSF plate that eroded A2A ability. They put everything they could into it except for kinematics... kinematics were expendable because of LO and sensors.

"Oh, the aircraft is good? That just goes to show you they spent too much money." "Oh, the aircraft is bad? What a bunch of losers and a waste of money." Not biased at all are ya? As for its kinematics, I take it you believe that when an F-16 pulls 9Gs it's more maneuverable than when an F-35 pulls 9Gs right? Right?

 

[donnage99]

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

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

The logic here is pretty much of a straw man. Apply the same line of logic toward, say, the "f-35C doesn't have thrust vectoring vs another airplane that does" and we can see how pointless it is to evoke the logic of "having is better than not having." It's more about seeing how a capability fits into the larger and integrated picture of the battlefield, then we can determine how relevant and useful that capability represents for the particular mission.

I didn't say it's useless, but certainly not very useful. Its usefulness must be questioned giving the current capabilities that we possess as a whole for this particular mission. We have more strategically important and better systems to track missile during this stage. Therefore, there's not much of a requirement here for the f-35. Sure it will be fed the cloud, I mean...why not, but it won't contribute as much as it appear to be. [/quote]

 

[sferrin]

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

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

The logic here is pretty much of a straw man. Apply the same line of logic toward, say, the "f-35C doesn't have thrust vectoring vs another airplane that does" and we can see how pointless it is to evoke the logic of "having is better than not having." It's more about seeing how a capability fits into the larger and integrated picture of the battlefield, then we can determine how relevant and useful that capability represents for the particular mission.

I didn't say it's useless, but certainly not very useful.

Not very useful to have your most numerous source of data collection have the ability to feed ballistic missile warning and targeting data into the cloud? Uhm, okay. . .[/quote]

 

[bring_it_on]

Lockheed reveals small self-defence weapon for fighters

The US Air Force is considering a Lockheed Martin proposal to adapt technology used for a ground-based missile defense system to protect fighters under attack in the air.

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) has invited proposals for a miniature self-defense munition concept study, seeking to develop a concept for a weapon to be dispensed from a fighter jet, hone in on an incoming missile and destroy it with a direct hit.

By replacing chaff, flares and directional infrared lasers, the so-called miniature self defence munition (MSDM) could revolutionise the concept of defensive countermeasures for tactical aircraft, says Frank St. John, vice-president of tactical missiles and combat manoeuvre systems at Lockheed’s Missile and Fire Control division.

“To kinetically engage as a countermeasure something that’s fired at you is an attractive possibility,” St. John says, “rather than just confuse or jam something that’s been fired at you.”

Lockheed has been studying the concept using internal funding for about three to four years, St. John says.

It seeks to leverage the active millimetre wave radar developed for the PAC-3 missile segment enhancement (MSE) programme. It repackages the sensor in a miniature munition powered by a small rocket motor.

In Lockheed’s concept, the pilot is alerted to an incoming missile and dispenses an MSDM, which hones into the target using the radar sensor, St. John says. It is a hit-to-kill weapon, and so lacks a warhead.

The miniature interceptor could dramatically increase the internal load-outs of fighters such as the F-22 and F-35, he says. It could replace the storage space now claimed for small diameter bombs. Alternatively, three of the miniature interceptors could replace one Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM, he says.

In addition to the PAC-3 MSE programme, Lockheed’s concept also comes out of two other internal projects, St. John says. One is a miniature, radar-guided missile called CUDA and the other programme is “KICM”.

Lockheed has worked on component-level hardware development and testing, along with performing operational analysis studies using internal funding. Last year, the AFRL contributed funding for more operational analyses, St. John says.

Although Lockheed has been studying the concept for four years, it may have competition for more AFRL funding. The AFRL on 5 February notified potential vendors that it is seeking proposals for a pair of concept studies on the MSDM itself and the munition’s seeker.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-reveals-small-self-defence-weapon-for-fighters-409219/

 

[tacitblue]

And the US needs 1700 aircraft designated as fighters that can track ballistic missiles at 800 miles? Just more evidence that they stuffed a lot of crap on the JSF plate that eroded A2A ability. They put everything they could into it except for kinematics... kinematics were expendable because of LO and sensors.

"Oh, the aircraft is good? That just goes to show you they spent too much money." "Oh, the aircraft is bad? What a bunch of losers and a waste of money." Not biased at all are ya? As for its kinematics, I take it you believe that when an F-16 pulls 9Gs it's more maneuverable than when an F-35 pulls 9Gs right? Right?

My old acquaintance and retired general used to pull 9g flying his phantom when he was under Olds's in Vietnam. So what's your point about 9g? Guess the phantom and 16 are equal since they can both pull 9g.

Check off that box on the 35s datasheet: "can achieve 9g, therefore it can defeat anything and isn't a turd "

 

[Triton]

"Lockheed Martin Skunk Works Chief: U.S. Next Generation Fighters Need Stealth"
by Sam LaGrone

February 18, 2015 7:20 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/18/lockheed-martin-skunk-works-chief-u-s-next-generation-fighters-need-stealth

CRYSTAL CITY, VA. – Stealth – the technology that masks aircraft and ships from enemy radars – needs to be an integral part of the next generation of U.S. fighter aircraft, the head of Lockheed Martin’s secretive Skunk Works division told reporters on Wednesday.

The Navy and the Air Force both are conducting early developmental work into each service’s next fighters past their latest crop – the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and the F-22 Raptor. Those new fighters – Navy’s F/A-XX and the Air Force’s F-X – will need stealth, Rob Weiss said during the Lockheed Martin Media Day.

“Stealth is and will remain foundational to any new airplane design and I will assert that based on the threat analysis we’ve done the technology assessments that we’re making,” he said.
“Anybody who would suggest that stealth is past its value really isn’t just looking at the data.”

Weiss was responding to a reporter’s questions on comments made by Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert who called into question the efficacy of stealth for fighters operating in contested environments.

“You know that stealth maybe overrated,” Greenert said during a keynote two weeks ago at the Office of Naval Research Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo.

“I don’t want to necessarily say that it’s over but let’s face it, if something moves fast through the air and disrupts molecules in the air and puts out heat – I don’t care how cool the engine can be – it’s going to be detectable.”

The Navy as been slow to adopt stealth to protect its fighters in contested airspace, relying more on electronic warfare platforms like the Boeing EA-18G Growler with a concept of operations (CONOPs) based on suppressing enemy air defenses (SEAD) rather than evading enemy air defenses with stealth aircraft.

The F-35C carrier variant is the Navy’s first production carrier stealth fighter and the service has said it will be an important component in the Navy’s Naval Integrated Fires Counter Air (NIFC-CA) as a forward sensor node to relay targeting information back to shooters in a Carrier Strike Group

Though stealth will be important for the F-35’s NIFC-CA role, Greenert said stealth or speed may not be for the replacement to the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet – F/A-XX, Greenert said.

USNI News understands the Navy is looking for an aircraft that will be able to carry a significant weapons payload and work as a beefy anti-air warfare platform.

Stealth should be part of that design, Weiss said.

“That doesn’t mean that that is going to be everything that it brings to the game, electronic attack capability is going to be — and is — a critical part of survivability of airplanes today and will continue to be in the future. But there’s no scenarios I see where you’re going to design a new airplane to operate in a contested environment that’s not going to be grounded in stealth,” he said.
“The data clearly shows that an airplane designed to be stealthy will carry the day in lethality and survivability versus one that’s not.”

The Navy is currently in the analysis of alternatives (AoA) process for F/A-XX and the program is scheduled to enter the fleet around 2030.

Lockheed Martin and Super Hornet builder Boeing have both indicated they’ll likely compete for the business.

 

[sferrin]

And the US needs 1700 aircraft designated as fighters that can track ballistic missiles at 800 miles? Just more evidence that they stuffed a lot of crap on the JSF plate that eroded A2A ability. They put everything they could into it except for kinematics... kinematics were expendable because of LO and sensors.

"Oh, the aircraft is good? That just goes to show you they spent too much money." "Oh, the aircraft is bad? What a bunch of losers and a waste of money." Not biased at all are ya? As for its kinematics, I take it you believe that when an F-16 pulls 9Gs it's more maneuverable than when an F-35 pulls 9Gs right? Right?

My old acquaintance and retired general used to pull 9g flying his phantom when he was under Olds's in Vietnam. So what's your point about 9g? Guess the phantom and 16 are equal since they can both pull 9g.

Check off that box on the 35s datasheet: "can achieve 9g, therefore it can defeat anything and isn't a turd "

I hope you didn't actually believe name-dropping would somehow increase the veracity of your argument. Oh, and F-4s aren't 9G aircraft (not more than once anyway).

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6678.msg58797.html#msg58797

 

[marauder2048]

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.

IIRC, space based sensors are still providing cues to the Reapers which in turn are providing track and discrimination data all using satcom links.

A survivable fast jet equipped with spherical staring + scanning IIR could do a lot of extremely useful BMD work un-cued.

 

[sferrin]

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.

IIRC, space based sensors are still providing cues to the Reapers which in turn are providing track and discrimination data all using satcom links.

A survivable fast jet equipped with spherical staring + scanning IIR could do a lot of extremely useful BMD work un-cued.

Yep. It's amusing to see people try too pooh-pooh this as completely useless. F-35s will be emission vacuums hoovering up all kinds of interesting and useful information over the battlefield and feeding it into the cloud.

 

[LowObservable]

I am envisioning a fast jet rolling into sustained inverted flight to use its scanning IR for BMD purposes.

Also, if I want a BMD (or any other) warning system, what matters is not how many platforms I have available forward-deployed, but how many I have in the air.

Finally, you might ask a few Hollywood notables what they think about "clouds".

 

[bobbymike]

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.

IIRC, space based sensors are still providing cues to the Reapers which in turn are providing track and discrimination data all using satcom links.

A survivable fast jet equipped with spherical staring + scanning IIR could do a lot of extremely useful BMD work un-cued.

Yep. It's amusing to see people try too pooh-pooh this as completely useless. F-35s will be emission vacuums hoovering up all kinds of interesting and useful information over the battlefield and feeding it into the cloud.

To some it seems "air combat" is a cool looking plane (re non-stealthy) in a WVR fight doing airshow type maneuvers and 'going to guns' to get the kill.

 

[sferrin]

I am envisioning a fast jet rolling into sustained inverted flight to use its scanning IR for BMD purposes.

Why would you need to?

Also, if I want a BMD (or any other) warning system, what matters is not how many platforms I have available forward-deployed, but how many I have in the air.

Yep. Nobody has claimed this is a primary mission (though you seem to think it MUST be). It's a bonus, nothing more.

Finally, you might ask a few Hollywood notables what they think about "clouds".

You mean those same clouds that effect every other IR sensor on the planet?

 

[LowObservable]

Not the ones that only block the sun and rain and snow on everyone.


Where is a ballistic missile likely to be, relative to a tactical jet?

 

[donnage99]

Not very useful to have your most numerous source of data collection have the ability to feed ballistic missile warning and targeting data into the cloud? Uhm, okay. . .

When you have more than enough current systems to do the job than it doesn't matter if you have an extra 3000 thousand f-35 to do the same job. You ALREADY had it in the bag to begin with.

 

[sferrin]

Not the ones that only block the sun and rain and snow on everyone.


Where is a ballistic missile likely to be, relative to a tactical jet?

Depends how far away it is. And there isn't dense cloud coverage 24/7/365 over the entire planet.

When you have more than enough current systems to do the job

What makes you think we do?

 

[Triton]

Posted by Pitchrate on the RCPowers forum:

Before I retired the F/A-XX team that worked for me gave me a model of that version. I thought you might like some other views of the plane.

Source:
http://www.rcpowers.com/community/threads/boeing-f-a-xx-concept-fighter-in-five-easy-pieces.13002/page-4

 

[VH]

Imagery generated by AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System




BALTIMORE, Sept. 7, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE:NOC) AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter successfully detected and tracked a two-stage rocket launch at a distance exceeding 800 miles during a routine flight test conducted aboard the company's BAC 1-11 test bed aircraft."The DAS could fill critical capability gaps in the area of ballistic missile defense (BMD)," said Dave Bouchard, program director for F-35 sensors at Northrop Grumman. "We have only scratched the surface on the number of functions the F-35's DAS is capable of providing. With DAS, we've combined instantaneous 360-degree spherical coverage, high frame refresh rates, high resolution, high sensitivity powerful processors and advanced algorithms into a single system. The number of possibilities is endless."

 

[Ogami musashi]

Thanks triton, nice find


The author also mentions an inovative yaw TVC system to keep the plane stable.

 

[Triton]

Thanks triton, nice find


The author also mentions an inovative yaw TVC system to keep the plane stable.

Hopefully, I am making up for my misfire posts.

 

[sferrin]

Thanks triton, nice find


The author also mentions an inovative yaw TVC system to keep the plane stable.

IIRC they tested something like that in the X-36/X-45A/Bird of Prey.

 

[quellish]

Yep. It's amusing to see people try too pooh-pooh this as completely useless. F-35s will be emission vacuums hoovering up all kinds of interesting and useful information over the battlefield and feeding it into the cloud.

If I am understanding your correctly you mean "network" when you are saying "cloud" here. In later posts "cloud" seems to be referring to "water vapor".


The idea of networking many different platforms and sensors into a more coherent picture of the battlespace is a compelling one. Unfortunately the DoD and the services have a history of deploying platforms that cannot communicate or interoperate well digitally. Different frequencies, capabilities, communications protocols or security have all been problems and continue to be.


On top of that, there are continuing problems getting enough bandwidth for current needs much less future ones.


These problems are not easy to solve, and without significant investment in solutions both 5th and 6th generation aircraft may find themselves alone in the network.

 

[sferrin]

If I am understanding your correctly you mean "network" when you are saying "cloud" here. In later posts "cloud" seems to be referring to "water vapor".

I was talking network, Bill was talking about rain clouds. Context is helpful here. I used the term "cloud" because the DoD appears to be trying to tie everything together (CEC, Blue Force Tracking, etc.), in which case they would (in theory) be using input from all available sources to populate the battlespace. And the more you have feeding into the system, the more complete and persistent the information can be. If the F-35 can reliably detect and track ballistic missiles, without compromising it's primary mission, why not use it?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Unfortunately, cloud based systems aren't exactly robust, not to mention highly insecure.

 

[sferrin]

Unfortunately, cloud based systems aren't exactly robust, not to mention highly insecure.

Someone should tell the DoD they need to cancel their CEC plans.

 

[bobbymike]

http://defensetech.org/2015/02/20/air-force-launches-new-air-supremacy-effort-for-2030/

 

[LowObservable]

I was not talking about rain clouds (although the only version of EO-DAS I have seen work detects these very easily, as well as birds. 50-ton airplanes a mile away are more difficult) but the issue that Quellish raises. It's fine to indulge in Professor-General Norden-style theorizing about the all-encompassing combat cloud but the practical problems (security, data management, LPI/LPD, compatibility and integration) are huge.

 

[quellish]

Someone should tell the DoD they need to cancel their CEC plans.

To connect these platforms currently requires assets like BACN, which also require line of sight to all of the players. BACN serves as a communications adapter, taking signals from platform X and translating it into something platform Y can understand and retransmitting it. In the near future you might have an air strike on Pineland that involves players using Link-16, IFDL, MADL, CDL and TCDL - which are not directly compatible. BACN and similar platforms/capabilities allow players using incompatible communications to share information.


If your adversary can find the BACN (or whatever airborne router you use) he can severely degrade your ability to fight.


This will still be the case for the foreseeable future.

 

[LowObservable]

So the adversary simply needs to place a hungry Labrador in theater, since it is well known that a Labrador can detect BACN at distances of well over 1000 nm.

 

[bobbymike]

So the adversary simply needs to place a hungry Labrador in theater, since it is well known that a Labrador can detect BACN at distances of well over 1000 nm.

Here's a test of the advanced detection system

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug_iluxQ1IQ

Now this threads really gone to the dogs

 

[sferrin]

It's fine to indulge in Professor-General Norden-style theorizing about the all-encompassing combat cloud but the practical problems (security, data management, LPI/LPD, compatibility and integration) are huge.

Preaching to the choir there. I was just pointing out what's been talked about and where things seem to be going. One reason "optionally manned" gives me the jeebs is the thought of compromised security in the middle of a war having catastrophic effects.

 

[Grey Havoc]

It's fine to indulge in Professor-General Norden-style theorizing about the all-encompassing combat cloud but the practical problems (security, data management, LPI/LPD, compatibility and integration) are huge.

Preaching to the choir there. I was just pointing out what's been talked about and where things seem to be going. One reason "optionally manned" gives me the jeebs is the thought of compromised security in the middle of a war having catastrophic effects.

[sympathetic shudder]

 

[bobbymike]

“Mod Squads” Report in March

—John A. Tirpak2/23/2015

A group of technology “squads” exploring off-the-beaten-path approaches to keep the US military’s technology edge—the Long-Range Research and Development Program Plan of the Pentagon’s “third offset” strategy—will report in March, and their findings will inform the Fiscal 2017 defense R&D budget, Pentagon systems engineering chief Stephen Welby said Friday. Speaking with reporters at the Pentagon, Welby said a series of “five-to-six person squads” are reviewing a small mountain of suggestions that have come in from industry regarding novel technologies and operational concepts. Many of the ideas offered in response to a request for information issued a few months ago “are what you’d expect,” but a few have created some real excitement, Welby said, declining to discuss them. Those having singular merit will be pursued with a streamlined approach, aimed at putting new “tools” in the hands of combat forces in five to seven years and be available military-wide in 15 years, Welby said. Among the investigative areas are space, undersea, air dominance, strike, air and missile defense, and “other technology-driven” concepts. One key area where DOD needs help is “how we live in a world where others have precision-guided munitions” that can threaten the US and its allies at range, Welby noted. Machine autonomy and “big data” are key interest areas, he added.

Air Dominance 2030

—John A. Tirpak2/23/2015

Even though the Air Force is already well inside the F-22 replacement cycle, the Pentagon doesn’t expect to be “pockets empty” when the Raptor reaches retirement age, Pentagon systems engineering chief Stephen Welby said Friday. “We have 30-year aircraft plans,” he told reporters at a Pentagon briefing. The new Long-Range Research and Development Plan, he said, which is assessing “Air Dominance 2030” and will report to Pentagon leaders in March, is asking whether the attributes of future air dominance “are … the right capabilities, … the right mix of capabilities, and are they properly informed by the art of the possible.” It will also determine “are there better break points where we might want to change the plans we’re on today, to take advantage of better options?” The Pentagon is trying to “think through” the “competitive environment,” as well as “the right time to introduce technologies” applicable to air dominance, Welby noted, and stage them such that they jibe with “obsolescence of capabilities we’ve deployed.” The “third offset” approach to finding asymmetric counters to adversaries “may succeed and it may not,” he admitted. “We’re trying to do something different, and that’s fundamentally risky.” However, he’s convinced the Pentagon will “learn something from this process.” The last time an offset strategy was pursued “it was 40 years ago” and the riskiness is something Pentagon leaders are learning to accept, Welby said.

 

[phrenzy]

You have to ask Pierre Sprey's question on this though, why not take that apparently great sensor and sensor fusion technology and put it in a decent airframe?

Plus the fact that the systems aren't modular causes problems:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-the-f-35s-targeting-system-really-10-years-behind-cu-1676442535

I would be very interested to know how much of the experience of the efficacy of upgrading 4th Gen fighters with pods and packs vs the difficulty of finding space inside stealthy 5th Gen platforms for upgrades is driving the system of systems approach to LRS-B and f/a-xx.

Ugh. Pods are band-aids, and poor ones at that from a signature perspective.

I agree that pods on modern LO fighters are not ideal but modular doesn't necessarily mean pods, pods are just one way of putting capability on an air frame. Unfortunately the F-35 is pretty bloody cramped at the moment, if it had any spare room they would fill it with fuel.

Anyone know what sort if size the NGAD proposals are shaping up to be? With the range/speed/payload requirements you'd think somewhere between the pakfa and f-22 but I know they are hoping to squeeze a lot of that performance out of aerodynamic and engine efficiency.

 

[quellish]

I agree that pods on modern LO fighters are not ideal but modular doesn't necessarily mean pods, pods are just one way of putting capability on an air frame. Unfortunately the F-35 is pretty bloody cramped at the moment, if it had any spare room they would fill it with fuel.

GAO did an interesting study on the "upgradability" of 5th generation aircraft vs. legacy aircraft:


http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-524


In short, the highly integrated nature of 5th generation aircraft makes them more difficult to upgrade/modernize than legacy systems.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The claim that the EOTS can't be upgraded with such features seems to conflict with earlier program documents for notional Block 4 and Block 5 upgrades which mention video streaming and an IR pointer.

I don't know who these "unnamed sources" are but I have my doubts.

They have enough fuel in the A and C already, can't put fuel everywhere.