Sixth Generation Fighter

[Dr Freud]

As allways, this forum is outstanding to get info, or at the very least gimme an url to get info.
As General mcArthur said: "I shall return" (after reading, that is)

I can answer one thing right away tho:
GD: "First, your misconception wrt VLO/LO on the F-35. Where are your sources for this?"

On the odd chance you'd trust janes more then a recognized shrink on different F35's "stealth" http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-27505.html

"a JSF program official said that the export versions "would look the same" - implying that materials under the surface might be different. Another source says that "all JSFs will have stealth features" but will not confirm that all of them will be identical in LO performance."

My bet is the ABC's is getting the least downgraded versions.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2593.html

"While the F-35 will have some anti-tampering appliances, how effective will these be if a variety of stealth profiles for the F-35 are set up for different export customers?

The ABC’s : Australia, Britain and Canada; more on Britain below. These are the most "low risk" of all of the F-35 non-U.S. team members."

 

[Grand Danois]

As allways, this forum is outstanding to get info, or at the very least gimme an url to get info.
As General mcArthur said: "I shall return"

I can answer one thing right away tho:
GD: "First, your misconception wrt VLO/LO on the F-35. Where are your sources for this?"
On the odd chance you'd trust janes more then a recognized shrink on different F35's "stealth" http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-27505.html
"a JSF program official said that the export versions "would look the same" - implying that materials under the surface might be different. Another source says that "all JSFs will have stealth features" but will not confirm that all of them will be identical in LO performance."

My bet is the ABC's is getting the least downgraded versions.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2593.html
While the F-35 will have some anti-tampering appliances, how effective will these be if a variety of stealth profiles for the F-35 are set up for different export customers?

The ABC’s : Australia, Britain and Canada; more on Britain below. These are the most "low risk" of all of the F-35 non-U.S. team members.

A substantial part of the aerostructures for the JSF are manufactured in Europe. This makes it pretty pointless to make a degraded variant, eh?

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/First_STOVL_F_35_Joint_Strike_Fighter_Takes_Shape_999.html

Additional:

JSF stealth won't be reduced
Posted on: Mar. 20th, 2006 || Source: aimpoints.hq.af.mil | E-mail Article | Print Article

JSF stealth won't be reduced
Foreign press reports that the Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) sold to Australia will be less stealthy than promised are wrong, prime contractor Lockheed Martin says.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported March 15 that the proposed Australian version of the JSF would have “low observability” instead of “very low observability.”

Lockheed JSF spokesman John Kent said there has been no downgrading of any of the aircraft’s stealth for foreign or domestic sales.

“It appears that there was just a misunderstanding of terms and definitions,” Kent said.

He said the Australian press reports apparently misinterpreted what “low observable” would mean.

The planes will still have the same stealthy ability to avoid radar and other detection equipment as before, he said.

Australia is one of the partner countries expected to buy JSFs in the coming decade.

http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/1274/JSF-stealth-wont-be-reduced.html

 

[Dr Freud]

High speed for fighters was dropped as a requirement by all combat aircraft manufacturers virtually at the end of the cold war.
that's why every subsequent design has been focussed on entering the battlespace autonomously asap and as far as possible before local AD detection kicks in.

Then why can the speedmonster F22 supercruise 390 nm radius... ??

I will tell why i think its no 1, and why i think F22 can supercruise 390 nm:

because Wether you A:want to intercept an aircraft, supercruise lets you hunt down the attacking aircraft and he can do one of two things: 1: cruise around and get shot down or 2: try to afterburn until empty fuel and eject.
or B: in attack, outrun the interceptor in your supercruise, mirroring mission A.
And it is just as important in a2a, you just can't hunt down a supercruiser.
And another thing: supercruise also helps you outrun missiles without depleting your fuel.

I believe that having higher/lower speed in cruise and military settings relative to the other plane makes one HELLUVA difference in catching/speeding away from the other plane. After approximatly 120.000 simulations, it has been proven that:
If my cruise speed is less then his, i have to go to military, (wich cost A LOT more,) if he go military, -i have to go afterburn (wich cost A LOT more again then military,) and i'm very likely to lose, due to fuel shortage. This problem is even more important for a fighter then an attack aircraft, because an attack aircraft just need to keep it even to be safe, while the fighter needs to do alot better to get a shot at a fleeing target.(here you must also take into account how much longer your missile have to travel) It can also be assumed the fleeing target is getting closer to his base with every nm, while the fighter gettin farther away from his base with every minute of persue/guzzling, wich really messes up the whole thing.

been reading a little from your post on stealth:

"Stealth" or more correctly LO platforms are a moving feast, a moving technological development where the capability evolves against the response. What was regarded as "Stealthy" even 25 years ago is now obsolete and replaced with new technology concepts.

It's a mistake to look at Stealth as a single technology entity - it’s not,...."

and it seem to just confirm my own thoughts that "stealth" is evolutionary improvements over the years rather then revolutionary...
i.e many gray shades here
I do believe that when cloaking like the klingons become reality, thats a revolutionary step. i read somewhere the nanotechnology for it can be here in 15 years

 

[Dr Freud]

If the spokesman for the company that want to sell F35 to foreigners says its not a downgraded version, well i guess i'll just have to take his word for it...

 

[Grand Danois]

If the spokesman for the company that want to sell F35 to foreigners says its not a downgraded version, well i guess i'll just have to take his word for it...

That is correct. If he lied he would be fired by now - and he isn't, two years later.

Western companies are very, very careful about public statements. This isn't "just his word". He speaks on behalf of the company and the project.

Btw, you're confusing VLO with "stealth".

 

[Dr Freud]

i dont confuse VLO/"stealth", there is a reason i write stealth "stealth" - its a buzzword salesmen of modern aircrafts use to sell planes, making the customer less attentive to raw performance, like for example speed

but stealth, - in my view, is also the ability to sniff around without using any active sensors, and triangle whatever is radiating out there. for a long time. and this is something i really like. I believe this is going to be extremely useful on upcoming 6 gen UAV, together with the ability to trade an UAV for an AWAC.

take my word for it, i wasnt implying i dont believe him, i think its commendable US sell non-downgraded hitech military stuff while russians routinely sell downgraded variants of their planes

i dont doubt for a minute He speaks on behalf of the company and the project.

 

[Grand Danois]

i dont confuse VLO/"stealth", there is a reason i write stealth "stealth" - its a buzzword salesmen of modern aircrafts use to sell planes, making the customer less attentive to raw performance, like for example speed

but stealth, - in my view, is also the ability to sniff around without using any active sensors, and triangle whatever is radiating out there. for a long time. and this is something i really like. I believe this is going to be extremely useful on upcoming 6 gen UAV, together with the ability to trade an UAV for an AWAC.

take my word for it, i wasnt implying i dont believe him, i think its commendable US sell non-downgraded hitech military stuff while russians routinely sell downgraded variants of their planes

i dont doubt for a minute He speaks on behalf of the company and the project.

So you accept what he says ? You have indications of the opposite ? Please elaborate if you do.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Then why can the speedmonster F22 supercruise 390 nm radius... ??

F-22A's kinematical performance is an important factor in its capability, however it has no were near as much of an effect on the tactical situation as comprehensive VLO and the AN/APG 77 AESA.

I will tell why i think its no 1, and why i think F22 can supercruise 390 nm:

because Wether you A:want to intercept an aircraft, supercruise lets you hunt down the attacking aircraft and he can do one of two things: 1: cruise around and get shot down or 2: try to afterburn until empty fuel and eject.
or B: in attack, outrun the interceptor in your supercruise, mirroring mission A.
And it is just as important in a2a, you just can't hunt down a supercruiser.
And another thing: supercruise also helps you outrun missiles without depleting your fuel.

No one is saying that F-22A like supercruise is not usefull. However we were discussing wether it was a core componant of a 5th gen fighter, and as nice as it is, and unless we are talking Hypersonics, it will simply never be as decicive as VLO. As to your points:

If you are on an intercept, which means you are going defenceive, you are most likely attempting to shoot down a target before he gets to ASM/PGM launch range, which would probably mean he is comeing towards you as fast as he can. Given the increasing range of standoff weapons, you are going to have to get out to the 250nm mark before he does, and unless your interceptor is sitting right over the target that range is apt to be greater. Even if you have M1.5+ supercuise, if the incoming is only detected at 300~350NM your going to have a $hit of a job reaching a reasonable missile lauch position in time. Sure maybe you can chase him down, but if the missiles have been launched you have failed in your primary mission. Therefore for a really efective IADS, whats really important isnt the cruise speed of your interceptors but your sensor footprint. If you extend that range to 500nm+ (in Aus its been extended to 1500nm+) your poor slow F-35A can cruise (sub sonic) out to 300nm and have more fuel to play with on burner when the bad guy arrives, which also means you have the time to put yourelf in a favorable missile launch position to maximize your probability of a kill, i.e. you dont have to rush. In such a scenario a bigger sensor footprint + F-35A is a more effective interceptpr combination than F-22A.

Also attitionally when the VLO platform is attacking, the counter-detection range would be droped to a fraction of 300nm, so the incomeing interceptor wont know it needs to intercept anything, even if he can supercruise. If the IADS gets a whiff and the interceptors are sent out they would be engaged by VLO platforms useing LPI radars, meaning they wouldnt even know they ahd been engaged. Most probably the first sign of trouble would be when they detected the missiles (which would be late) or the AMRAAM's started pinging. Supercruise is not going to help you any when your faceing a VLO fighter.

I believe that having higher/lower speed in cruise and military settings relative to the other plane makes one HELLUVA difference in catching/speeding away from the other plane.

I'm sure it would, but how often will you be "chaseing" down annother fighter. In most scenario's your going to be intercepting a target comeing towards you, or engageing a CAP in a meeting engagement, which also means they'll be pretty much comeing towards you or staying in the battlespace. In all of these scenario's a slightly higher cruise speed isnt going to be decicive, or even that usefull (of cource on the second one F-22A may have a significant effect). Your effective missile range when chaseing down a fleeing fighter would be drastically reduced anyway.

After approximatly 120.000 simulations, it has been proven that:
If my cruise speed is less then his, i have to go to military, (wich cost A LOT more,) if he go military, -i have to go afterburn (wich cost A LOT more again then military,) and i'm very likely to lose, due to fuel shortage. This problem is even more important for a fighter then an attack aircraft, because an attack aircraft just need to keep it even to be safe, while the fighter needs to do alot better to get a shot at a fleeing target.(here you must also take into account how much longer your missile have to travel) It can also be assumed the fleeing target is getting closer to his base with every nm, while the fighter gettin farther away from his base with every minute of persue/guzzling, wich really messes up the whole thing.

Again that maybe so, but are you claiming that this disparity in fuel consumption when chaseing down afleeing target at long range is more decisisve than the effect of VLO on all other combat scenario's???

been reading a little from your post on stealth:

"Stealth" or more correctly LO platforms are a moving feast, a moving technological development where the capability evolves against the response. What was regarded as "Stealthy" even 25 years ago is now obsolete and replaced with new technology concepts.

AFAIK the outdated VLO concepts that are 25 years old are outdated becasue of cost and logistical constraints, not becasue they are somehow not VLO any more.

It's a mistake to look at Stealth as a single technology entity - it’s not,...."

and it seem to just confirm my own thoughts that "stealth" is evolutionary improvements over the years rather then revolutionary...
i.e many gray shades here
I do believe that when cloaking like the klingons become reality, thats a revolutionary step. i read somewhere the nanotechnology for it can be here in 15 years

Of cource VLo techniques are evoloutionary, but there have been several revoloutionary leaps in both capability and the effect on the tactical situation.

 

[Dr Freud]

"F-22A's kinematical performance is an important factor in its capability, however it has no were near as much of an effect on the tactical situation as comprehensive VLO and the AN/APG 77 AESA."

I do believe its comprehensive VLO and passive sensors, and perhaps the "low probability of detection radar" - depending on how low of a probability it is, is simply invaluable, but not in the pure a2a role.
I think supercruise is more valuable in a2a.

"If you are on an intercept, which means you are going defenceive, you are most likely attempting to shoot down a target before he gets to ASM/PGM launch range, which would probably mean he is comeing towards you as fast as he can. Given the increasing range of standoff weapons, you are going to have to get out to the 250nm mark before he does,"....but if the missiles have been launched you have failed in your primary mission.

Here, we actually do agree 100%. wich is why i like persistance and range just as much, to keep the damn thing on patrol where it is needed. and to make a supercruise/A/B dash to nail him, but the incredible guzzling on A/B make it only marginally effective on a fleeing target. in this case, supercruise is invaluable.

"I'm sure it would, but how often will you be "chaseing" down annother fighter."

I was actually thinking more on an detected attack aircraft, alltho a fighter having used up his bvr missiles, or near bingo fuel, would also fit in the picture.

"Again that maybe so, but are you claiming that this disparity in fuel consumption when chaseing down afleeing target at long range is more decisisve than the effect of VLO on all other combat scenario's???"

I was claiming that this disparity in fuel consumption when chaseing down afleeing target at long range is more decisisve than the effect of VLO specifically. I do believe VLO has some serious merit in many other scenarios, just not on CAP. primarily because a fighter on CAP must light up his radar to detect incoming attack aircraft, and by doing so, he is waving his arms "look everyone, i'm here!"

 

[the road runner]

Moved from the RAAF thread to this thread.

OK Guys i cant believe what i read on Australian and New Zeland Defender this week in the UPDATE section (Page 50-51)

well here is the jist of it

"Boeing have developed an interim air combat option for US requirements which combine a rapid acquisiton fleet of next gen low observable block 3 F/A-18E/F+ derivitave over the next 10 yrs follow the introduction of its top secret 6 Generation fighter currentley in development in 2020-25,boeing argue that bypassing the 5th gen F-22/f-35 fleet could see the introduction of the hyper-capable,probably unmanned 6th gen aircraft 20 years earlier and at a much lover price than waitingout the operational life of the 5th generation aircraft.Boeing reject media and website criticism that the F/A-18E/F block 2 aircraft,like th 24 ordered by the former government,is outclassed by SU-27 variants.The claim is supported by the US Navy which is satisfied that the block 2 super bugs can counter the HIGHEST QUALITY enemy.Boeing claim that the block 3super bugs under development delivers almost complete F-22A or F-35A capability at much lover cost.
This option is particulary attractive to australia,which would save enormous funds on an F-35A/F-22A acquisition.Significant savings could would also be made ia the relatively inexpensive jump to block2/3 ultra hornet from the RAAF in service F/A-18A HUG Hornets.If a sixth gen aircraft platform was then introduced it 2025,it would make the RAAF the premier air combatservice in the region for decades to come,as regional powers worked off their operational life of their late 4th and early 5th fighter purchases.
Boieng is developing 6Th generation combat capability using concepts like the X-45 joint unmanned combat air vehicle which has already released inert J series wepons"

Well thats what i read!

I was intrested to hear that Boeing will develope a F/A-18E and F BLOCK 3 capable super bug, WOW that is great news for the US NAVY and RAAF if JSF takes longer to get into production.Dose anyone know any capability of the Block 3 superbugs?

Also it was great to hear that the US Navy sees the SUPER BUGS as "countering the highest quality adverseries(SU-27 direvitives)

UM but i think propaganda is overtaking the Boieng Block 3 "Under developmet delivers the almost the complete F-22A or F-35A capability at much lower risk and far lower costs".nfloorl:
Well i dont think the F-18E/F will have the stealth chariristic of JSF or F-22 as it has no internal bomb bay,but it dose have some stealth materials.

WELL now they say dont buy the 5th generation JSF or F-22A instead bypass these aircraft and purchase the 6th generation aircraft instednfloorl:

Would the US sell us this capability?i think not as they will not sell us the 5th gen F-22A why would we get the 6th gen Boieng aircraft?we would not i think untill the USA has sufficient numbers.
I think this is Boeing trying to grapple market share away from Lockheed Martin,as JSF is Lockheed and F/A-18 is Boeing.:vamp

Well i guess you cant believe everything you read!!


Any how i hope KEVIN 07 dose not cancell the JSF or the SUPER BUG deal.

MEEP MEEP

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

My friend, use the word quote with [ ] around it to open the quote window, and use /quote with [] around it to close it. Its nicer than just putting "." arround what i have to say, if you know what i mean.

I do believe its comprehensive VLO and passive sensors, and perhaps the "low probability of detection radar" - depending on how low of a probability it is, is simply invaluable, but not in the pure a2a role.
I think supercruise is more valuable in a2a.

Could you eloborate how exactly??

In simple terms I see the improtant elements of BVR combat are 3 area's in this order:

1) Your radar & missile combination; Because your useless if you can not see the enemy and engage him.

2) Your RCS and EW/EWSP suite (electronic warfare) becasue that defines the capability of number 1

3) Kinematical performance becasue this allows you to move around the battlespace and improve your position.

Quite simply what use is better raw performance when you cant see or shoot your enemy (in BVR) when he can see and shoot you? In 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 your going to get shot to pieces even if you can "supercruise" in the class of the F-22A.

Additionally VLO changes the game at the system level not just for the fighter jock. Think about it in agregate terms, both you and the opfor have a intergrated air combat system with AEW&C, ground based C4ISR and AAR in addition to platforms, expet he has legacy supercruises and you have VLO, non supercruiseing F-35A's. Basically you are going to be able to moniter the battlespace effectively and he wont. If you cant see the decisive advantage this would give you then you may need to have a long hard think about it. By bringing VLO to the fight you take away the value of his AEW&C, thishas a huge effect on tactical employment and BVRAAM performance. Add to that the effect of 150km+ ranged EA capability that can disrupt datalinks and radar performance. You have the ability to tkae the enemies information gathering & distrbution network apart at the nerve junctions, in addition to effectively blinding him. Slaughter will be the result, and supercruise wont save you. That is what 5th generation fighters bring to your air combat system and it is a truely decisive advantage.

Remember, platfroms alone dont win battles, systems do.

Here, we actually do agree 100%.

Then do you agree with my conclusions?

I was actually thinking more on an detected attack aircraft, alltho a fighter having used up his bvr missiles, or near bingo fuel, would also fit in the picture.

If your chaseing a dedicated attack aircraft from his 6 at BVR then he's allready used up all his PGM's and you've failed. As for chaseing down a fleeing fighter, in a real scenario he isnt going to be alone so you cant sit on his 6 forever before you start eating BVRAAM's. Again its a prety specific scenario that would not have any real impact on the cource of a battle.

 

[Dr Freud]

My friend, use the word quote with [ ] around it to open the quote window, and use /quote with [] around it to close it. Its nicer than just putting "." arround what i have to say, if you know what i mean

lets see if it works, if it do, i thank you:cheers

about the detection range, my unqualified guess is the range to detect F35 will be at around the max range of AMRAAM, or more. if its helluva shorter than that, then yes, i agree with u rite away hands down on nearly everything ope

if it on the other hand is >1.5 times longer then the max range of AMRAAM, i stand my ground:duel

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

lets see if it works, if it do, i thank you:cheers

about the detection range, my unqualified guess is the range to detect F35 will be at around the max range of AMRAAM, or more. if its helluva shorter than that, then yes, i agree with u rite away hands down on nearly everything ope

if it on the other hand is >1.5 times longer then the max range of AMRAAM, i stand my ground:duel

AFAIK contemporary fighter sized radars (MSA's) can detect a 2~3m2 target at ~150km (thats a rough idea, exact capabilities are clasified). F-35's RCS is stated to be .001~.0001m2. I'm sure you can do the math. AIM 120D has a maximum range of 100nm (160km). So were talking detection range of maybe 10~20 km's depending on the radar (could be less on some of the less capable contemporary radars such as the MiG 29's ZHUK-ME, it may be less than 5000m).

 

[Dr Freud]

If this is true, then yes, it is the silver bullet. It also mean that the time of the fighter and AWAC is over, since none of them will see anything anyway. All you need now is VLO Attack, and there is no defense against them, for good or for worse.
You say 100 nm is 160 km ? when i looked it up it was 185 km.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If this is true, then yes, it is the silver bullet.
You say 100 nm is 160 km ? when i looked it up it was 185 km.

100 imperial miles = 160 km

a nautical mile is not an imperial mile

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

100 imperial miles = 160 km

a nautical mile is not an imperial mile

Sorry got my imperial stuff mixed up. 'twould be a lot easier if the yanks got with the metric programme!

Freud, 190km ,maximum range for the AIM 120D, although effective range would on most occasions would be probably <150km's, which is still plenty.

 

[Dr Freud]

'twould be a lot easier if the yanks got with the metric programme!

:lol3 here's another thingie we can fully agree on!

On a more serious note tho, do you realize the implications of an attack aircraft for wich there is no defense ? and how much more dangerous the world just became ?

 

[SlyDog]

:lol3 here's another thingie we can fully agree on!

On a more serious note tho, do you realize the implications of an attack aircraft for wich there is no defense ? and how much more dangerous the world just became ?

OPS....and an another problem. Think if two fighters flown head two head, so stealthy that they not can see each other ... *wwwomp* :wink:

 

[swerve]

Sorry got my imperial stuff mixed up. 'twould be a lot easier if the yanks got with the metric programme!
....

The nautical mile isn't an Imperial or US measure, it's an international one. Was originally defined as one minute of arc along a meridian, but that's imprecise, as it depends on where you measure it. It was therefore redefined in 1929 as exactly 1852 metres. Even the USA uses that measure now.

 

[SlyDog]

High speed might be demanded as a result of the big range?

However..I thinking a bit how the range partly might be improved. By coincidence I reed this article, just minutes ago...and thought - mayby this is a thing that will be needed.

Modern turbine engines are designed to operate optimally at a single flight condition, and are compromised at other mission points, Mr. Stricker said. Currently pilots must use the throttle to match thrust when conditions are not optimal. This results in diminished fuel efficiency and performance.

"ADVENT is a multi-design point engine that incorporates the best characteristics of high performance and fuel efficient jet engines into a single adaptable engine," Mr. Stricker said.

The new engine design will use adaptive fans and cores to generate high thrust when needed, and optimize fuel efficiency when cruising or loitering.

Article


Well....what do you think?...I am just speculate wildly now but it seems intresting anyway.