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

Status
Not open for further replies.
TAOG said:
UAVs could start replacing manned fighters in mid-2020: USAF

"... “The idea of what is a fighter, the equation and kind of the math that we use to for a fighter still works pretty well in the European environment. The range and payload and distance problem is still a pretty effective solution,” he says. “It’s not as effective as solution in the Pacific because of the great distances.”

The Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter has been criticised for having a limited combat range of 600nm (1110km), insufficient to avoid a surprise hit by China’s long-range ballistic and cruise missiles while parked at an air base in the western Pacific Ocean.

In part to solve that limitation, the Air Force Research Laboratory and Kratos Defense Security Solutions have been developing the XQ-58A Valkyrie, a low-cost UAV with a 1,500nm combat radius. The attritable aircraft could be flown independently or as a loyal wingman alongside manned aircraft.

The range problem is also influencing the USAF’s thinking on its next-generation fighter development programme, called Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD), says Holmes.

“So as you look at NGAD, and you look at the follow-on programmes, I wouldn’t expect it to produce things that necessarily look like a traditional fighter, in that same kind of swap between range and payload and distance that we’ve done in a traditional fighter,” he says. “And, I think that’s what Dr. Roper is talking about. Both: How about the unmanned, low cost of tradable options? And, how might they do those same missions?” ...?



https://www.flightglobal.com/milita...ned-fighters-in-mid-2020s-usaf/136978.article
Click to expand...

How would they detect anything?
 
Asking you to turn-on your transponder?
(don't laugh, some genius have banked gold on that).
 
China won't give us a choice in this regard. It'll force the services to adopt completely unmanned combat platforms for a multitude of roles. Not now of course, but in time. That's kind of why we have to take a sober look at the Ford Class Carriers, or rather, a sober look at everything. Unmanned warfare can be cheap and expendable, putting a lot of things at risk. I know we want to carry on proud traditions and push forward with familiar/recognizable platforms, but everything's going to be different. Driven by the respective superpowers doing everything they can to maintain an edge.
 
raptor82 said:
rooster said:
The rotary launcher was real?? With that weight and Complexity? Live and learn!
Click to expand...

View attachment 627983View attachment 627984View attachment 627985View attachment 627986View attachment 627987


https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e1/5c/c4/03ddaba41f1fa6/US4637292.pdf
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that the rotary launcher was meant to mislead, since it was indeed a part of Lockheed's ATF submission for the Dem/Val RFP. The rotary launcher was pretty much abandoned soon after down-select when Lockheed up teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics. The arrangement used up a lot of volume and pushed out the inlets, which created excessive wave drag presumably from the large cross section. I can see how a rotary launcher has quite a bit of "wasted volume" in the center.
 
Doesn't Musk like to warn about the dangers of AI? Replacing all manned fighters with UCAVs would necessitate a whole lot of reliance on AI.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Doesn't Musk like to warn about the dangers of AI? Replacing all manned fighters with UCAVs would necessitate a whole lot of reliance on AI.
Click to expand...

Think about it in terms of expendability. Swarms. Something that can overwhelm any air-defense system that's protecting 10s of billions of $$ worth of military assets for 1/100th the price and little risk.
 
sferrin said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Doesn't Musk like to warn about the dangers of AI? Replacing all manned fighters with UCAVs would necessitate a whole lot of reliance on AI.
Click to expand...

I think he's worried about a generalized AI but not AI in general (if that makes sense).
Click to expand...
I think his main beef is with seed AI, and not specialized AI. To be fair, seed AI is something that has the potential to go VERY pear shaped if you're not careful. It's not that we have to fear "smart" AI per se. Even a really dumb AI will be really dumb really fast.
 
MihoshiK said:
sferrin said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Doesn't Musk like to warn about the dangers of AI? Replacing all manned fighters with UCAVs would necessitate a whole lot of reliance on AI.
Click to expand...

I think he's worried about a generalized AI but not AI in general (if that makes sense).
Click to expand...
I think his main beef is with seed AI, and not specialized AI. To be fair, seed AI is something that has the potential to go VERY pear shaped if you're not careful. It's not that we have to fear "smart" AI per se. Even a really dumb AI will be really dumb really fast.
Click to expand...
WTF is "seed" AI?
 
In_A_Dream said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Doesn't Musk like to warn about the dangers of AI? Replacing all manned fighters with UCAVs would necessitate a whole lot of reliance on AI.
Click to expand...

Think about it in terms of expendability. Swarms. Something that can overwhelm any air-defense system that's protecting 10s of billions of $$ worth of military assets for 1/100th the price and little risk.
Click to expand...
How is that going to happen, specifically? There ain't no swarm that can traverse 1000 miles, which means you need a carrier vehicle, which can be killed. Battlefield is a different situation. I wouldn't want to be in a tank 20 years from now. (Then again, tanks will likely have DEW CIWS by then so the concern may be over inflated.)
 
sferrin said:
MihoshiK said:
sferrin said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Doesn't Musk like to warn about the dangers of AI? Replacing all manned fighters with UCAVs would necessitate a whole lot of reliance on AI.
Click to expand...

I think he's worried about a generalized AI but not AI in general (if that makes sense).
Click to expand...
I think his main beef is with seed AI, and not specialized AI. To be fair, seed AI is something that has the potential to go VERY pear shaped if you're not careful. It's not that we have to fear "smart" AI per se. Even a really dumb AI will be really dumb really fast.
Click to expand...
WTF is "seed" AI?
Click to expand...
As Arjen said, AI capable of pulling itself up by it's bootstraps.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Doesn't Musk like to warn about the dangers of AI? Replacing all manned fighters with UCAVs would necessitate a whole lot of reliance on AI.
Click to expand...
He thinks AI is inevitable and the only hope is to advance technology that would merge human consciousness with that of AI, the whole if you can't beat them join them. In fact, he has a company that researches on this technology
 
donnage99 said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Doesn't Musk like to warn about the dangers of AI? Replacing all manned fighters with UCAVs would necessitate a whole lot of reliance on AI.
Click to expand...
He thinks AI is inevitable and the only hope is to advance technology that would merge human consciousness with that of AI, the whole if you can't beat them join them. In fact, he has a company that researches on this technology
Click to expand...

AI only works when you programme in Issac Asimov's Three Law's of Robotics into the CPU and make sure that the Fighter/Bomber cannot overrule the law's.
 
It would be difficult to reconcile the tasks one would expect robotic fighter bombers to perform with Asimov's First Law - a robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
 
sferrin said:
How is that going to happen, specifically? There ain't no swarm that can traverse 1000 miles, which means you need a carrier vehicle, which can be killed. Battlefield is a different situation. I wouldn't want to be in a tank 20 years from now. (Then again, tanks will likely have DEW CIWS by then so the concern may be over inflated.)
Click to expand...

As the famous Dr. Ian Malcolm once said: "Artificial Life will find a way"
 
FighterJock said:
donnage99 said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Doesn't Musk like to warn about the dangers of AI? Replacing all manned fighters with UCAVs would necessitate a whole lot of reliance on AI.
Click to expand...
He thinks AI is inevitable and the only hope is to advance technology that would merge human consciousness with that of AI, the whole if you can't beat them join them. In fact, he has a company that researches on this technology
Click to expand...

AI only works when you programme in Issac Asimov's Three Law's of Robotics into the CPU and make sure that the Fighter/Bomber cannot overrule the law's.
Click to expand...
Impossible. There will always be somebody who'd build an AI without them.
 
FighterJock said:
AI only works when you programme in Issac Asimov's Three Law's of Robotics into the CPU and make sure that the Fighter/Bomber cannot overrule the law's.
Click to expand...
I suggest you look up the discussion that includes Elon, Sam Harris, and couple of leading experts and engineers on how AI.
 
DARPA ACE update. Eventually I expect an AI algorithm will be developed which can dogfight at least as good as a human. Couple that to an airframe rated to 100 G's and it's hard to see manned dogfighting being viable. A really good DIRCM which can hard kill a missile body in 1-2 seconds is probably the only thing which will keep you safe.

 
It's better to buy new planes from an open production line for daily operations than maintain upgraded decade old costly airframe if that model remains in service.

Whereever F-35 nbr you can field, you'll still have to keep the old Eagle on the line the time you'll get all squadrons fielded. The USAF think that they can't offset that capability today with F-16 only.

Even if they buy only 50 of them, they will fly like 100 Raptor or ~85 C/D Eagles, filling gaps that would otherwise strain the fighter force.

Now with a lightened airframe, FBW and far upgraded avionics, you have a plane better than most 4+th Gen aicraft around, turning it de facto into a credible force.

Obviously that was not the plan as the old Eagle was supposed to vanish humbly in front of hordes of Mig44, Super Flanker, JH(ot)10 or Rafale's and Typhoons meanly sold to rogue states in the ME (DiD)... But history has its twists and it would be foolish not to bank on it.
 
Last edited:
USAF speak about a capacity of mach 3 with the F-15 EX to launch futur hypersonic missile do you think its possible ?
 
dark sidius said:
USAF speak about a capacity of mach 3 with the F-15 EX to launch futur hypersonic missile do you think its possible ?
Click to expand...
Doubt there was any reference to the F-15 itself hitting Mach 3; what was the source for that?
 
dark sidius said:
They speak about this capacity in more than one article. https://www.airforcemag.com/article/f-15ex-careful-what-you-dont-ask-for/ a capacity abble to reduce the size of the booster for hypersonic glide vehicle.
Click to expand...

Way back when the original requirements that ultimately lead to the F-15 had Mach 3 as a goal but later versions dropped this requirement and any where near the revised max speed of Mach 2.5 is seldom if ever used/ reached in service, especially in a theoretical scenario where carrying a likely quite likely hefty substantial and draggy hypersonic glide vehicle to launch speed. Sounds like a writer getting a bit over enthusiastic.
However given the potential clearance and weight capacity of at least 3 of it’s pylons (each of main wing pylons and the centreline) and it’s Mach 2 plus and altitude capacities then the F-15 likely to still be better suited to that task than alternatives like the F-22, F-16 and F-35.
 
So Pratt and Whitney get the contract for the F-15EX engines at the expense of General Electric, sheer utter madness. :mad:
 
Colonial-Marine said:
What are the odds that whatever new contract that is written up for the engines costs more than the one they just cancelled?
Click to expand...
The potential is there, and historically F110 has been able to beat F100 on both cost and power. But Pratt seems to have yanked on someone's string to force a competition, so maybe they have a plan to beat GE. At least, it seems like a waste to force a competition you don't think you can win.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom