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

[dark sidius]

The great break for the 6th gen fighter will be in the propulsion domain, i think we start to see some combined cycle engines or variable cycle engine to enhance the capacity of today fighter. The two firms tell that greater speed, range and altitude so this mean new type of engine to do that.

 

[aam641]

I think they will have the ability to very closely cooperate with large number of mostly autonomous UCAVs using secure line-of-sight datalinks.

 

[fightingirish]

Multi-role ammunition like ECM-missiles, A2A/A2S-missles and electronic beams, lasers as like on the F-35L.

 

[Dragon029]

I personally think the 6th generation should incorporate serious directed energy weaponry - such weaponry wouldn't have to come in the form of lasers capable of destroying other aircraft, but rather, something like a high-powered microwave cannon; capable of causing major damage to a target's electronics and sensors - after all, what's a missile without flight computers? Or a fighter without targeting systems, etc?

If a system is developed, which is portable, light, powerful, and capable of firing in (relatively) rapid succession, it could be a game changer for WVR combat.

Even in BVR, enemy missiles could be negated, forcing the enemy to get close (enough for you to target them directly), or forcing them to flee.

I suppose there would likely be a physical effect on the pilots of enemy aircraft as well - a flash of pain across their skin? Something like that could be extremely distracting in a dogfight.

 

[bobbymike]

I personally think the 6th generation should incorporate serious directed energy weaponry - such weaponry wouldn't have to come in the form of lasers capable of destroying other aircraft, but rather, something like a high-powered microwave cannon; capable of causing major damage to a target's electronics and sensors - after all, what's a missile without flight computers? Or a fighter without targeting systems, etc?

If a system is developed, which is portable, light, powerful, and capable of firing in (relatively) rapid succession, it could be a game changer for WVR combat.

Even in BVR, enemy missiles could be negated, forcing the enemy to get close (enough for you to target them directly), or forcing them to flee.

I suppose there would likely be a physical effect on the pilots of enemy aircraft as well - a flash of pain across their skin? Something like that could be extremely distracting in a dogfight.

I would think that while yes DEW would be part of a 6th generation it will be for self defense but the last thing you would want is to get your $250 million fighter in a furball where even a 40 year old Mig-29 might get a lucky shot at you.

 

[RyanC]

What's your thoughts on what that 6th Gen Barrier Breakthrought factor will be?

Productionized hydrogen-fuelled turboramjets enabling Mach 4+ and above speeds at flight regimes in excess of 100,000 feet or so.

Try shooting it down with legacy SAMs or legacy aircraft.

 

[sferrin]

Hydrogen would be a horrible fuel for a fighter aircraft.

 

[dark sidius]

May be a new type of turbojet with mach 3 capability, Boeing and Lockheed speak about the speed greater than today fighter, so they have a new propulsion in developpement.

 

[Evil Flower]

I would expect to see more augmented reality systems replace the traditional cockpit instruments. The kind of stuff that was researched for ATF - projected weapon/threat envelopes, predicted "best paths", virtual terrain map/target info overlaid on the terrain etc etc.

 

[RyanC]

Hydrogen would be a horrible fuel for a fighter aircraft.

It does enable you to go faster for the same type of engine technology compared to hydrocarbon fuel; and it would have an enormous heat sink capability; useful for cooling a directed energy weapon, or actively cooling the leading edges of the aircraft...

 

[sferrin]

I would expect to see more augmented reality systems replace the traditional cockpit instruments. The kind of stuff that was researched for ATF - projected weapon/threat envelopes, predicted "best paths", virtual terrain map/target info overlaid on the terrain etc etc.

"projected weapon/threat envelopes, predicted "best paths", " They already have that. They do need a Pilot's Associate though. R2-D2. B)

 

[sferrin]

Hydrogen would be a horrible fuel for a fighter aircraft.

It does enable you to go faster for the same type of engine technology compared to hydrocarbon fuel; and it would have an enormous heat sink capability; useful for cooling a directed energy weapon, or actively cooling the leading edges of the aircraft...

It's two biggest drawback (it's cryogenic and its low energy-density) are killers for fighter aircraft.

 

[RyanC]

It's two biggest drawback (it's cryogenic and its low energy-density) are killers for fighter aircraft.

It's worth noting that manouverability has become less and less important with each succeeding generation -- the Teen Generation of fighters was an aberration based on the really unique environment of Vietnam.

 

[GeorgeA]

It probably would be quite the logistical effort to produce and distribute hydrogen to fighter bases and aircraft carriers all over the world. That's one of the main reasons why all of the exotic fuels and additives (boron, etc.) never seem to get to the operational stage, aside from performance and operational complexity. JP-7 was an exception,and it worked because there were only a handful of SR-71s at only a few bases.

 

[RyanC]

It probably would be quite the logistical effort to produce and distribute hydrogen to fighter bases and aircraft carriers all over the world.

You can 'wash' it from natural gas, which the world is currently floating in, and if all else fails, you can crack it from water.

In fact, aircraft carriers could even 'crack' their own hydrogen with the power from the nuclear reactor -- remember that one proposed super space launch booster - SEA DRAGON was proposed to have a Enterprise class CVAN fill it up with hydrogen. ;D

 

[ouroboros]

As far as microwave directed energy weapons go, it may be possible to create a low tech version, thus negating the 6th gen claim for that class of weapon.

Said "ghetto rig" could be based on classic gun/cannon mechanics, but instead of a bullet, the cartridge is an explosive flux compression generator (FCG) feeding a steerable microwave antenna. Engine generator or APU powers an onboard capacitor bank that stores the first stage charge for priming the FCG, the FCG itself being the second stage (and possibly a third stage FCG in the same cartridge), assuming an arrangement similar to early conceptual FCG EMP bombs with a selectable kill cone for the antenna. This effectively makes a reusable version of said conceptual FCG EMP bomb as a DEW. Whether an FCG is suitable for pulse lasers is as good a guess as anyone else, but considering the moves towards continuous wave lasers, that would make FCG's unattractive. The good part about the cartridge method is it makes it easy to integrate into existing logistics systems, at the price of making an ammo limited weapon, something electric DEW designers have been shying away from.


Long term, electric weapons pose additional constraints on power/generator/APU/storage integration. Is it advantageous to have full peak power production capability, or will you always require some sort of energy buffer? If using buffers, is it advantageous to have ground/aerial replenishment (when tanking fuel, do you tank power from a tanker's generator system as well)? Might we see the advent of wing integrated batteries?

 

[sferrin]

It's two biggest drawback (it's cryogenic and its low energy-density) are killers for fighter aircraft.

It's worth noting that manouverability has become less and less important with each succeeding generation -- the Teen Generation of fighters was an aberration based on the really unique environment of Vietnam.

Whatever happened to using methane? Seemed to be the next big thing and then it disappeared.

 

[purduesUSAFguy]

Liquid hydrogen is a non-starter, it's ultra low density would equate to an enormous mass and volume penalty which would be nearly insurmountable in tactical aircraft. Look at the amount of time and effort put into cryogenic compatible composite tanks with very little progress. (to be fair Lockheed Martin claimed to have solved the delamination issue during the X-33 program)


In any event, even if you did figure out a way to deal with the tank mass/volume issue you still have all the problems associated with dealing with a deep cryogenic gas, producing it, distributing it, and handling it.


Liquid or slush methane is an interesting idea, but it's not something I've heard talked about in a long time. If Bill Sweetmen didn't lie to me when I was in 4th grade there is already at least one liquid methane powered aircraft flying already.

 

[jsport]

Shaftless Gearless bearingless (maybe) for Mach 4
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2004/2004-09%20-%200942.html

 

[RyanC]

Whatever happened to using methane? Seemed to be the next big thing and then it disappeared.

I don't think Liquid Methane is feasible from a regulatory standpoint anymore -- there's a US Public Law that states that 'alternative' fuels bought by the government have to have a 'greenhouse/carbon' footprint that is equal to or less than conventional hydrocarbon fuels.
I don't know how it'd affect liquid methane.

 

[Mat Parry]

I don't think Liquid Methane is feasible from a regulatory standpoint anymore -- there's a US Public Law that states that 'alternative' fuels bought by the government have to have a 'greenhouse/carbon' footprint that is equal to or less than conventional hydrocarbon fuels.

Wasn't aware of that.

With those kind of restrictions electrolysis of sea water to produce gaseous hydrogen followed by futher processing to produce liquid hydrogen is unbeatable!.... errr.... provided the vast amounts of electricity required to do all this is produced via nuclear power or other low CO2 energy sources ;D (lets be honest....nuclear it is then)

 

[Mat Parry]

Hang on!

The CO2 savings from using the above hypothetical "super green nuclear hydrogen" above could be used to offset the emissions from a small fleet of craft burning "Slush methane".

What a ridiculous idea!.... (and I'm not talking about the hypothetical fuels or craft) :-X

 

[Grey Havoc]

There are stranger fuels out there. For example: http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Russia_Develops_Revolutionary_Ammonia_Rocket_Engine_999.html

 

[quellish]

Liquid or slush methane is an interesting idea, but it's not something I've heard talked about in a long time. If Bill Sweetmen didn't lie to me when I was in 4th grade there is already at least one liquid methane powered aircraft flying already.

Please show me the liquid methane production and storage capability that could support such an aircraft

 

[aam641]

Please show me the liquid methane production and storage capability that could support such an aircraft

How about any LNG terminal? But methane has only 20% more energy than kerosene, unlike hydrogen with 200% more. I think this may not be worth the trouble.

 

[mithril]

personally i'm expecting sensors to be a primary driver of '6th gen' fighters. the raptor was designed to dominate the '4th generation' fighters russia was building. i'd imagine the whole point of the '6th gen' fighter is to create an aircraft that can dominate over 5th gen fighters that rely on stealth for their superiority over previous planes.
so having a suite of sensors able to overcome stealth technology is going to be one of the items which a '6th gen' plane would need.
i'd imagine that IRST's and alternate band radars that aren't effected by stealth as much would be a minimum addition. plus a really powerful computer to crunch the data from the sensors.
of course, if i'm right about that, it's possible the Russian T-50 PAK-FA will be the first 6th gen fighter.

 

[Pioneer]

My only hope with this F-X & F/A-XX, is that both U.S industry and the USN/USAF all play serious ball on these projects!! The United States really only have one chance after the mightmare that is called the F-35!!
I still hope (and have faith in the concept of) the USAF & USN working together in a 'joint' program to derive their F-X & F/A-XX aircraft. This might not mean the same actual aircraft design (i.e fuselage - as per the JSF program), but it should be made to incorporate the same engines, avionics, radars, missiles etc........
I guess time will only tell

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rhinocrates]

U.S industry and the USN/USAF all play serious ball on these projects


After TFX (F-111) as well as F-35, and considering that the costs associated with navalising a fighter arise from toughening up the structure, shortening the nose adding VTOL or variable geometry and tailhook and so on, maybe it would make sense to make it a Navy-led programme, with the USAF version being a "decontented" model? Good luck with the politics of that!

 

[Stargazer]

After TFX (F-111) as well as F-35, and considering that the costs associated with navalising a fighter arise from toughening up the structure, shortening the nose adding VTOL or variable geometry and tailhook and so on, maybe it would make sense to make it a Navy-led programme, with the USAF version being a "decontented" model? Good luck with the politics of that!

Interesting notion! And if you think of it, the Navy used to have the lead in aviation in the early days...

Wanting to have a single airframe for all services and all uses is typical political thinking, and it always results in wasting more money than you've tried to save. If the top deciders had thought along those lines in the 1970s, the VFAX, VFX, AX, FX and VTOL attack programs would have been merged, and only one aircraft would have been developed to fit the F-14, F-15, A-8 and A-10 roles. It would have probably led to an aircraft that was not as good as any of these three and three times as costly as all three combined, and which would have seen service life only several years later...

 

[sferrin]

U.S industry and the USN/USAF all play serious ball on these projects


After TFX (F-111) as well as F-35, and considering that the costs associated with navalising a fighter arise from toughening up the structure, shortening the nose adding VTOL or variable geometry and tailhook and so on, maybe it would make sense to make it a Navy-led programme, with the USAF version being a "decontented" model? Good luck with the politics of that!

Yeah, let's unnecessarily saddle land-based fighters with all the extra weight. Brilliant! :

 

[Rhinocrates]

Yeah, let's unnecessarily saddle land-based fighters with all the extra weight.


Well, I did use the rather vague term "decontented".

 

[AeroFranz]

It could be worse. You could try to add a VTOL version on top of it. Oh wait...

 

[Reaper]

 

[Stargazer]

It could be worse. You could try to add a VTOL version on top of it. Oh wait...

LMAO...

 

[jsport]

Variable geometric wings are always going to provide pilots more options.. hard to see that ever being a bad thing...w/o even argueing the maximization of leading and trailing edge flap technology which provide more options as well

 

[Sundog]

Variable geometric wings are always going to provide pilots more options.. hard to see that ever being a bad thing...w/o even argueing the maximization of leading and trailing edge flap technology which provide more options as well

You'll notice there haven't been any new swing wing designs since AF/X. The simple fact is their advantages usually aren't much better than their disadvantages.

 

[jsport]

Variable geometric wings are always going to provide pilots more options.. hard to see that ever being a bad thing...w/o even argueing the maximization of leading and trailing edge flap technology which provide more options as well

You'll notice there haven't been any new swing wing designs since AF/X. The simple fact is their advantages usually aren't much better than disadvantages.

today is a learning day but beleive there is no USG willingness assume new risk/payoff of updated designs not yet pursued thus no requirement manifested. Please elaborate on disadvantages which could not be overcome by lighter weight smarter materials.

 

[Sundog]

today is a learning day but beleive there is no USG willingness assume new risk/payoff of updated designs not yet pursued thus no requirement manifested. Please elaborate on disadvantages which could not be overcome by lighter weight smarter materials.

Those same lighter weight and smarter materials that improve the swing wings weight/complexity disadvantages also confer an even greater advantage to the fixed wing aircraft. The improvements are directly proportional across both platforms, not just to one.

Also, one of the disadvantages of a swing wing in combat is that it reveals the aircraft's energy state based on sweep angle. However, I should also state in all fairness that one of the reasons we haven't seen many new swing wing designs, IMHO, is due to LO. It will be more difficult to control signature on swing wing than on a fixed wing configuration. Although, I assume they would only have to truly limit it in a single configuration, such as wings fully swept.

 

[SDN]

Anyone think this will be the long range stealthy strike fighter the Navy has needed since the cancellation of the A-6F?

 

[bobbymike]

Navy Begins Review Of New Industry Proposals For 6th-Generation Fighters

The Navy next week will begin reviewing industry proposals for a potential F/A-18E/F Super Hornet replacement, setting in motion the U.S. military's first formal consideration of a sixth-generation fighter aircraft. The Navy plans to use the proposals will help refine requirements for an aircraft carrier-based strike fighter -- manned, unmanned, optionally manned, or all three -- to begin flying in 2030, according to a solicitation issued in April. Proposed solutions were due to the Navy today for the F/A-XX, a notional aircraft that does not lay claim to any portion of future Navy spending plans and may not materialize into a formal program. However, defense analysts are watching the effort closely given the potential overlap with the F-35C, the Navy's Joint Strike Fighter variant. The solicitation has drawn responses from the Defense Department's two primary fighter aircraft builders, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. "We have submitted a response," Deborah VanNierop, Boeing Phantom Works spokeswoman, told InsideDefense.com. Joe Stout, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics communications director, said, "We are responding to the Navy's request for information."

Neither company was willing to provide any details on what they offered the Navy. VanNierop would not confirm that Boeing's response included a design similar to the tailless, stealthy fighter aircraft concept the company has previously disclosed. Northrop Grumman -- which has a long history of designing and delivering Navy aircraft, and which next year plans to demonstrate the first carrier-based launch and recovery of its Unmanned Combat Air Systems Demonstration, the X-47B -- declined, through spokeswoman Cyndi Wegerbauer, to comment on whether it is responding to the Navy's solicitation. Earlier this year, the Navy's air warfare director (N98) asked Naval Air Systems Command to conduct a "trade-space refinement" as a precursor to a planned analysis of alternatives for potential Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler replacements. An AOA is a key step in building a case for the need to launch a new-start acquisition effort. In other words, the F/A-XX assessment is a relatively small -- but potentially important -- step in the Navy's effort to develop a modernization strategy.


On April 13, NAVAIR's Warfare Analysis and Integration Department announced plans to conduct a market survey aimed at "determining market interest, feasibility, and capability of potential sources." The Navy asked industry for "candidate solutions" for aircraft carrier-based, multirole aircraft capable of operating in anti-access, area-denial environments and conducting a range of missions, to include air warfare, strike warfare, surface warfare and close air support. "The trade space refinement activity will characterize a broad trade space, to include unmanned, optionally manned and manned aircraft," states the April request for information, noting the Navy will be closely considering the cost and affordability of all proposals. "Concepts that are derived from legacy aircraft, 'clean sheet' new design aircraft, as well as innovative technology concepts specifically tailored for the operational context are all relevant." The Navy also requested that the responses include, "to the extent possible," rough cost estimates for development, procurement and operating the proposed aircraft. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, in a March posture statement, announced the service's plans to begin considering options for the eventual replacement of the Super Hornet fleet.


"In the far term, the Navy will need to replace its F/A-18E/F Fleet," Mabus said in testimony prepared for the House Armed Services Committee on March 1. "Pre-Milestone A activities are under way to define the follow-on F/A-XX aircraft. Options include additional F-35s, a variant of the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System (UCLASS), a new manned/unmanned platform, or some combination of these." The Navy's modernization plan calls for replacing F-18C/Ds with the F-35C. Some defense analysts have speculated that the exploration of an F/A-XX capability could be part of a hedging strategy for the Navy in the event the Joint Strike Fighter program does not pan out as planned. Under such a scenario, the service could continue buying F/A-18E/Fs until an aircraft along the lines that industry has proposed becomes available. -- Jason Sherman