Fifth-generation jet fighter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A
fifth-generation jet fighter is a
fighter aircraft classification used in the United States and elsewhere encompassing the most advanced
jet fighter generation as of 2014. Fifth-generation aircraft are designed to incorporate numerous technological advances over the
fourth generation jet fighter. The exact characteristics of fifth generation jet fighters are controversial and vague, with
Lockheed Martin defining them as having all-aspect
stealth even when armed,
Low Probability of Intercept Radar (LPIR), high-performance air frames, advanced
avionics features, and highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the theatre of war for
situational awareness.
[1] The only currently combat-ready fifth-generation fighters are the
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, which entered service with the
U.S. Air Force in 2005;
[2][3][4] the
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II,
Sukhoi T-50, and
Chengdu J-20 are currently under various stages of testing and development.
Development
USA
Previous generation stealth aircraft, such as the
B-2 Spirit and
F-117 Nighthawk, were designed to be bombers, lacking the
Active Electronically Scanned Array
(AESA) radars, low probability of intercept (LPI) data networks, aerial
performance, and air to air weapons necessary to engage other aircraft.
[5]
In the early 1970s, various American design projects identified
stealth, speed, and maneuverability as key characteristics of a next
generation air to air combat aircraft. This led to the
Request for Information for the
Advanced Tactical Fighter project in May 1981, which resulted in the F-22.
[6]
The USMC is leveraging the USAF's experience with "fifth-generation
air warfare" in the F-22, as they develop their own tactics for the
F-35.
[7]
According to Lockheed Martin, the only fifth-generation jet fighter currently in operational service is their own F-22 Raptor.
[2][8] US fighter manufacturer
Lockheed Martin
uses "fifth generation fighter" to describe the F-22 and F-35 fighters,
with the definition including "advanced stealth", "extreme
performance", "
information fusion" and "advanced sustainment".
[2] Their definition does not include
supercruise capability, which has typically been associated with the more advanced modern fighters, but which the F-35 lacks.
[9]
Lockheed Martin attempted to trademark the term "5th generation
fighters" in association with jet aircraft and structural parts thereof,
[10] and has a trademark for a logo with the term.
[11]
The rapid development of the Sukhoi PAK FA may see a rival for the
F-35 in the future. Russian and Chinese fifth generation fighters are
expected to enter further development/service in 2017, which is also the
predicted year that the F-35 program will enter the same stages.
[12]
Russia
In the late 1980s, the
Soviet Union outlined the need for a next-generation aircraft to replace
fourth-generation fighter aircraft:
Mikoyan MiG-29 and
Sukhoi Su-27 in
frontline service. Two projects were proposed to meet this need, the 4.5th generation fighter aircraft:
Sukhoi Su-47 and the
Mikoyan Project 1.44 (although later modernized
MiG-35 to 4.5th generation fighter). In 2002,
Sukhoi was chosen to lead the design for the new combat aircraft.
As the first post-Soviet fighter,
Sukhoi PAK FA (T-50)
will incorporate technology from both the Su-47 and the MiG 1.44 and
when fully developed is intended to replace the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the
Russian inventory and serve as the basis of the
Sukhoi/HAL FGFA project being developed with
India.
[13][14] A fifth-generation jet fighter, it is designed to fight against the American F-22 Raptor and
F-35 Lightning II. The Sukhoi PAK FA performed its first flight 29 January 2010.
[15][16]
Russia is now constructing a new stealth lightweight
multirole fighter –
Mikoyan LMFS (a.k.a. Project 1.27, MiG-1.27) by
Mikoyan aircraft manufacturer. This jet fighter is based on the cancelled MiG 1.44.
[17]
China
By the late 1990s, several Chinese fifth-generation fighter programs, grouped under the program codename
J-XX
or XXJ, were identified by western intelligence sources. PLAAF
officials have confirmed the existence of such a program, which they
estimate will enter service between 2017–2019.
[18][19] Nevertheless,
Robert Gates has claimed that it may possess as much as 20 times more "advanced stealth fighters" than China by 2020.
[20] By late 2010, two prototypes of the
Chengdu J-20 had been constructed and were undergoing high-speed taxi trials.
[21] The J-20 made its first flight on 11 January 2011.
[22]
China remains dependent on reliable Russian jet engines and advanced
radars and so does not yet have an independent fifth generation jet
fighter program, according to a Russian news report.
[23]
Another stealth fighter design from
SAC started to circulate on the internet in September 2011.
[24] In June 2012, photos about a possible prototype of F-60 being transferred on highway began to emerge on the internet.
[25] This aircraft was named
Shenyang J-31 later, and made its maiden flight on Oct 31, 2012.
[26]
News has emerged that
Pakistan and
China will develop an improved Block III variant of the
JF-17 Thunder, with possible fifth generation characteristics. The new fighter will be unveiled in 2016.
[27]
Turkey
In 2011
Turkish Aerospace Industries initiated a $20 million concept design phase for a fifth-generation fighter
TFX. In 2013 a decision should be made for the future of this project.
[28] Turkey is the only
JSF
member with a program of its own. Turkish Aerospace Industries has
stated that the program will cost $120 billion (with engine
development).
[29]
India
India is developing the
Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a twin-engine fifth-generation stealth multirole fighter apart from
Sukhoi/HAL FGFA project being developed with Russia. The main purpose of the AMCA is to replace the aging
SEPECAT Jaguar &
Dassault Mirage 2000. Unofficial design work on the AMCA has been started.
[30]
Russia will also provide
India with an advanced version of the
Sukhoi-30MKI,
which will have fifth generation capabilities and stealth features.
India will be giving 18 Sukhoi-30K aircraft to Russia, to replace them
with the advanced Sukhoi-30MKI, which is being christened as "Super
Sukhoi" that boasts of fifth-generation features.
[31]
Japan
Japan also has project
Mitsubishi ATD-X.
Common design elements
Giovanni de Briganti has defined the defining elements of a fifth generation fighter to be:
[32]
In order to minimize their
radar cross-section (RCS), all fifth-generation fighters use
chines instead of standard leading edge extensions and lack
canards,
though the Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 has engine intake extensions that seem to
function somewhat like canards and the Chengdu J-20 designers have
chosen the agility enhancements of canards in spite of their poor
stealth characteristics.
[33] They all have twin canted vertical tails also to minimize side RCS. Most fifth-generation fighters with
supermaneuverability achieve it through
thrust vectoring.
They all have internal weapon bays in order to avoid high RCS weapon pylons, but they all have external
hardpoints
on their wings for use on non-stealthy missions, such as the external
fuel tanks the F-22 carries when deploying to a new theater.
All fifth-generation fighters have a high percentage of
composite materials, in order to reduce RCS and weight.
Software defined aircraft
All revealed fifth-generation fighters use
commercial off-the-shelf
main processors to directly control all sensors to form a consolidated
view of the battlespace with both onboard and networked sensors, while
previous generation jet fighters used federated systems where each
sensor or pod would present its own readings for the pilot to combine in
their own mind a view of the battlespace.
[34][35][36] The F-22A was physically delivered without
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) or situational awareness
infra-red search and track. It will gain SAR later through software upgrades.
[37]
However any flaw in these huge software systems can knock out
supposedly unrelated aircraft systems and the complexity of a software
defined aircraft can lead to a
software crisis with additional costs and delays.
[38][39]
By the end of 2013 the biggest concern with the F-35 program was
software, especially the software required to do data fusion across the
many sensors.
[40]
Sukhoi calls their
expert system for sensor fusion the artificial intelligence of the PAK-FA.
[41]
An automatic software response to an overheat condition apparently has contributed to at least one fatal crash of an F-22.
[42]
The F-35 uses
Software-defined radio systems, where common
middleware controls
FPGAs.
[43]
Col. Arthur Tomassetti has said that the F-35 is a "software intensive
airplane and software is easy to upgrade, as opposed to hardware."
[44]
In order to ease the addition of new software features, the F-35 has adopted a
kernel and app separation of security responsibilities.
[45]
Steve O'Bryan of Lockheed Martin has said that the F-35 may gain the ability to operate UAVs through a future software upgrade.
[46] The USN is already planning to place its
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike system under the control of a manned aircraft, to act as a flying missile magazine.
[47]
Advanced engines
Fifth generation jet fighters use the newest generation of high performance jet engines and only the American
Pratt & Whitney F119
is fully developed. The engines for the F-35 are still under
development, the Chinese are dependent on Russian engines, and even the
Russians are falling short in the development of the latest jet engines.
[48][49]
Situational awareness
The combination of stealthy airframes, stealthy sensors, and stealthy
communications is designed to allow fifth generation fighters to engage
other aircraft before those targets are aware of their presence.
[50]
Sensor fusion and automatic target tracking are projected to give the
fifth-generation jet fighter pilot a view of the battlespace superior
to that of legacy
AWACS
aircraft that may be forced back from the front lines by increasing
threats. Therefore tactical control could be shifted forwards to the
pilots in the fighters.
[51] Michael Wynne, former Secretary of the United States Air Force, has suggested elimination of the
Boeing E-3 Sentry and
Boeing E-8 Joint STARS
in favor of more F-35s, simply because so much effort is being made by
the Russians and Chinese to target these platforms that are built to
commercial airliner standards.
[52]
However, the more powerful sensors, such as AESA radar which is able
to operate in multiple modes at the same time, may present too much
information for the single pilot in the F-22, F-35 and T-50 to
adequately use. The
Sukhoi/HAL FGFA
offered a return to the two-seat configuration common in fourth
generation strike fighters, but this was rejected over cost concerns.
[53]
There is ongoing research to apply
Track-before-detect across
Sensor fusion in the core CPU to allow fifth generation fighters to engage targets that no single sensor has by itself detected.
[54]
The limits of stealth
Even committed fifth generation fighter users such as the Israelis
concede that advances in sensors and computing will overcome a pure
stealth configuration within a decade. This is why the Israelis insisted
that the F-35 have defined interfaces so that the electronic warfare
systems could be constantly improved to match the threat.
[55] All known fifth generation designs have extensive electronic warfare systems, partly in response to an
incident where the limited EW systems on a F-117 may have led to its loss in combat.
[56]
Stealth is now seen as "part of the overall electronic warfare issue",
in that a stealthy platform is easier to hide with the assistance of
jamming.
[57]
The combat cloud
Gilmary M. Hostage III
has suggested that fifth generation jet fighters will operate together
in a "combat cloud" along with future unmanned combat aircraft,
[58] and
Manazir has suggested that this might come as quickly as loading a
UCLASS with
AMRAAMs to be launched at the command of an F-35.
[59]
Critics and alternative definitions
The definition of the term
fifth-generation fighter from
Lockheed Martin has been criticized by companies whose products do not
conform to these particular specifications, such as
Boeing and
Eurofighter, and by other commentators such as
Bill Sweetman:
[60]
"it is misleading to portray the F-22 and F-35 as a linear evolution in
fighter design. Rather, they are a closely related pair of outliers,
relying on a higher level of stealth as a key element of survivability –
as the
Lockheed YF-12 and
Mikoyan MIG-25, in the 1960s, relied on speed and altitude."
[61]
The United States Navy and Boeing have placed the
Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in a "next generation" fighter category along with the F-22 and F-35,
[62] as the Super Hornet has a "fifth generation" AESA radar, modest
radar cross-section (RCS) reductions and sensor fusion.
[63][64]
A senior USAF pilot has complained about fifth-generation claims for
the Super Hornet: "The whole point to fifth generation is the synergy of
stealth, fusion and complete situational awareness. The point about
fifth-generation aircraft is that they can do their mission anywhere –
even in sophisticated integrated air defense [IADS] environments. If you
fly into heavy IADS with a great radar and sensor fusion, but no
stealth, you will have complete situational awareness of the guy that
kills you."
[65] Michael “Ponch” Garcia of
Raytheon
has said that the addition of their AESA radars to the Super Hornet
provides "90 percent of your fifth-generation capability at half the
cost."
[66] And a top Boeing official has called their newest 4.5th generation fighters "stealth killers".
[67]
In response to the use of the "fifth generation" term, Eurofighter
has made a fifth-generation checklist placing different weights on the
various capabilities, and arguing that the application of the label to
strike aircraft such as Lockheed-Martin's F-35 is ill advised, and even
inconsistent with the aircraft's specifications. Meanwhile, Eurofighter
adds "net-enabled operations" as noteworthy requirement and
de-emphasizes full-scope low observability as only one factor in
survivability.
[68]
In the same article Eurofighter GmbH appear to acknowledge the
remarkable performance of Lockheed Martin's F-22 aircraft, while
demonstrating that labels as simple as "fifth generation" may easily be
devised to serve the interests of the writer.
Richard A. Bitzinger of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, a former consultant for the American
RAND
think tank suggests that Western Europe's "failure" to develop a
fifth-generation jet fighter may reduce these former leaders in the
market to also-ran status as the world's attention shifts to the
competition between the United States and Asian powers.
[69]
Canadians Alex Wilner and Marco Wyss of the Center for Security Studies
claim that Europe's failure to "keep up" with the F-35 may make the
European jet fighter manufacturers close up shop.
[70]
However Europe may return with a trans-national 'sixth generation'
UCAV, assuming that the political entanglements can be evaded.
[71] The European Defence Agency has warned that the European $60 billion industry could collapse by 2020.
[72]
The Russian Defense Ministry defines fifth generation as including
"stealth technology, supersonic cruising speed, highly-integrated
avionics, electronics and fire-control systems".
[73]
http://www.airforce-technology.com/
Sixth generation fighter aircraft: rise of the F/A-XX
21 August 2012
F-35 aircraft are barely out of the wrapper, yet the US
is already examining options for a sixth generation of fighter aircraft.
Liam Stoker profiles the development to date of sixth generation
fighters, including proposals from Lockheed Martin and Boeing’s F-X and
F/A-XX programmes.
Fifth generation fighters, such as the F-22 Raptor and
F-35 Lightning, have provided the US with a certain element of aerial
superiority.
Even though Russia's PAK FA remains in testing and
engine-related concerns continue to plague the development of China's
Chengdu J-20 aircraft, external observers still consider the F-35 to be
the technically better aircraft.
Despite fifth generation fighters
still sitting in the wrapper and without resting on its laurels, the US
Air Force and Navy are already looking forward to the future.
The
F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning have been revolutionary in terms of
their development as fifth generation fighters, yet preliminary work has
already commenced on the design and development of their successors.
Early stages of development for generation six
Sixth generation fighters, dubbed Next Generation TACAIR, are not scheduled to enter service until 2025-2030.
"Lofty criticism has also been levied at the estimated cost of the development and procurement of such an aircraft."
Presolicitation
revealed in November 2010 highlighted the need for any such aircraft to
demonstrate "enhanced capabilities in areas such as reach, persistence,
survivability, net-centricity, sustained awareness, human-system
integration and weapon effects."
The presoliciation further noted
that any such systems "will have to counter adversaries equipped with
next generation advanced electronic attack, sophisticated integrated air
defense systems, passive detection, integrated self-protection,
directed energy weapons and cyber attack capabilities", highlighting the
technologically-advanced environment that the US military expects to be
faced with in the not-so-distant future.
The presolicitation
triggered a number of manufacturers to announce their intentions, with
Boeing's Phantom Works and Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works beginning to
release information relating to systems they could feasibly develop.
Boeing's 'all encompassing' future strategy
The
company to enthuse about the project the most, however, remains Boeing.
Having witnessed its X-32 multipurpose jet fighter being overlooked in
the Joint Strike Fighter contest, with the US military opting for
Lockheed Martin's X-35 competitor, Boeing are vying to produce the
F-35's successor.
"Boeing have gone one
further, proposing a replacement for Lockheed Martin's F-22A Raptor
aircraft that only entered service in 2005."
Boeing's Phantom
Works has been funding the development of such an aircraft, responding
to the US Navy's request for information regarding a new F/A-XX aircraft
that could replace its fleet of Super Hornets in the 2030s. The regular
hornet aircraft will be replaced by the incoming F-35s, however they do
not possess the capabilities to adequately replace the larger Super
Hornet aircraft and, as such, the US Navy and Air Force has been
examining its options.
Boeing's proposals appear to have been well
received, with the US issuing a Request for Information in April 2012
regarding the company's F/A-XX concept aircraft.
Boeing have also
gone one further, proposing a replacement for Lockheed Martin's F-22A
Raptor aircraft that only entered into service in 2005. The project is
currently limited to concept images and the US Air Force remains
non-committal to any such pandering, however, Boeing envisages the
F/A-XX, F-X and a possible unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) comprising
an all-encompassing future strategy for the USAF.
Greater speed and self-healing structures
Although
Lockheed Martin's proposal is still conceptual, the company has led
calls for greater speed, range, stealth and self-healing structures;
developments that will require new breakthroughs in propulsion,
materials, power generation and weapon technology. Self-healing
structures in particular would pose a significant advantage over
modern-day aircraft, remaining airborne despite taking heavy fire.
"Although
Lockheed Martin's proposal is still conceptual, the company has led
calls for greater speed, range, stealth and self-healing structures."
The
premise of self-healing structures in aircraft isn't, however, new.
Discussion surrounding such technology has been around since 2008, when
aerospace engineers at Bristol University, UK, developed a prototype
self-healing system taking inspiration from plants and animals.
The
system comprises pockets of a two-part epoxy system - an epoxy resin
and a hardener - installed around vulnerable parts of the aircraft such
as the underbelly, hatchways and wheel wells. If the area is damaged,
the contents of the pocket are released to form a temporary plug,
helping the aircraft to operate in spite of the damage.
Although
not specifically designed for use in military aircraft, its potential
benefits are likely to interest designers of future military aircraft.
Future
weaponry could also be shaped by technology under development for
commercial aircraft, with the military eager to utilise scramjets for
the production of faster missiles.
Despite failing its most recent
tests, Boeing's X-51A Waverider scramjet remains in development as it
hopes to reach hypersonic speeds approaching Mach 6, a speed at which a
missile could not be stopped by conventional air defence technology.
Continued experiments with directed energy weapons and lasers, used for
defensive as well as offensive measures, are also likely to shape
precisely what sixth generation fighters are equipped with.
Sixth-generation fighters face early criticism
Despite
any such aircraft remaining in the conceptual stages, it has not
stopped several senior officials questioning and even condemning such a
programme. Many officials consider the development of a sixth-generation
fighter at this stage optimistic, with many rival fifth-generation
fighters such as Russia's Sukhoi PAK FA and China's Chengdu J-20 deemed
inferior to the popular F-35. Detractors argue against the feasibility
of a programme that the F-35's superiority could arguably deem
unnecessary.
Related project
The aircraft was developed to meet the requirements of the US Air Force (USAF) as part of the WaveRider programme.
Lofty
criticism has also been levied at the estimated cost of the development
and procurement of such an aircraft, with estimates ranking the
programme to cost in excess of $40bn. With the military already
investing heavily in the next generation bomber programme, and with
military spending facing increasing cuts owing to various financial
crises, funding of that scale is unlikely to be welcomed.
Former
US Marine Corps Lt General Emerson Gardner told FlightGlobal of his
scepticism surrounding the F/A-XX programme, saying: "It's not going to
happen. There's not any money there."
Other criticisms of the
programme include an alleged lack of commitment to the carrier-variant
F-35 aircraft following a raft of problems in their development, a
problem that former USMC deputy aviation commandment George Trautman
cited, telling FlightGlobal: "It sort of validates the naval aviators'
overall lack of commitment to the F-35. It shows how much they're in bed
with Boeing to include a whole host of retired navy aviators who work
for Boeing."
Although the programme itself promises to push the US
Air Force and US Navy's capabilities beyond what is already aerial
superiority, Boeing's vision of an all-encompassing strategy for the
future of US aircraft still clearly has several hurdles to overcome
before it can be considered feasible.
Related content
The F-22A Raptor advanced tactical fighter entered service with the US Air Force in December 2005.
The stealthy, supersonic multirole fighter was designated the F-35 Lightning II in July 2006.
A
single-seat, multirole stealth fighter aircraft, the Chengdu J-20 is
manufactured by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group (CAIG) of China.
The Sukhoi PAK FA is a multirole stealth fighter aircraft being developed by Sukhoi of Russia
The Sixth Generation Fighter
By John A. Tirpak
Executive Editor
The technologies are emerging, but what’s needed is a program to pull them together.
Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth generation
[fighter] capabilities necessary for future air dominance.” The
Secretary of the Air Force, Michael B. Donley, and the USAF Chief of
Staff, Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, issued that statement in an April 13 Washington Post article.
The Air Force may have to move a little faster to develop that next
generation fighter. While anticipated F-22 and F-35 inventories seem
settled, there won’t be enough to fix shortfalls in the fighter fleet
over the next 20 years, as legacy fighters retire faster than fifth
generation replacements appear.
The Air Force will have to answer a host of tough questions about the nature of the next fighter.
Should it provide a true “quantum leap” in capability, from fifth to
sixth generation, or will some interim level of technology suffice? When
will it have to appear? What kinds of fighters will potential
adversaries be fielding in the next 20 years? And, if the program is
delayed, will a defense industry with nothing to work on in the meantime
lose its know-how to deliver the needed system?
What seems certain is that more is riding on the Air Force’s answers than just replacing worn-out combat aircraft.
Initial concept studies for what would become the F-22 began in the
early 1980s, when production of the F-15 was just hitting its stride. It
took 20 years to go from those concepts to initial operational
capability.
Industry leaders believe that it will probably take another 20 years to field a next generation fighter.
That may be late to need. By 2030, according to internal USAF analyses,
the service could be as many as 971 aircraft short of its minimum
required inventory of 2,250 fighters. That assumes that all planned
F-35s are built and delivered on time and at a rate of at least 48 per
year. The shortfall is due to the mandatory retirement of F-15s and
F-16s that will have exceeded their service lives and may no longer be
safe to fly.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has set the tone for the tactical
aviation debate. He opposed the F-22 as being an expensive, “exquisite”
solution to air combat requirements, and has put emphasis on the less
costly F-35 Lightning II instead. He considers it exemplary of the kind
of multirole platforms, applicable to a wide variety of uses, that he
believes the US military should be buying in coming years. He and his
technology managers have described this approach as the “75 percent”
solution.
Gates has also forecast that a Russian fifth generation fighter will be
operational in 2016—Russia says it will fly the fighter this year—and a
Chinese version just four years later. Given that US legacy fighters are
already matched or outclassed by “generation four-plus-plus” fighters,
if Russia and China build their fifth generation fighters in large
numbers, the US would be at a clear airpower disadvantage in the middle
of the 2020s. That’s a distinct possibility, as both countries have
openly stated their intentions to build world-class air fleets. If they
do, the 75 percent solution fails.
What You See Is What You Get
The Air Force declined to offer official comment on the status of its
sixth generation fighter efforts. Privately, senior leaders have said
they have been waiting to see how the F-22 and F-35 issues sorted out
before establishing a structured program for a next generation fighter.
The Air Force has a large classified budget, but it seems there is no
“black” sixth generation fighter program waiting in the wings. A senior
industry official, with long-term, intimate knowledge of classified
efforts, said the F-22 wasn’t stopped at 187 aircraft because a secret,
better fighter is nearly ready to be deployed. He said, “What you see is
what you get.”
That opinion was borne out in interviews with the top aeronautic
technologists of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, the
three largest remaining US airframers. They said they were unaware of an
official, dedicated Air Force sixth generation fighter program and are
anxiously waiting to see what capabilities the service wants in such a
fighter.
The possibilities for a sixth generation fighter seem almost the stuff of science fiction.
It would likely be far stealthier than even the fifth generation
aircraft. It may be able to change its shape in flight, “morphing” to
optimize for either speed or persistence, and its engines will likely be
retunable in-flight for efficient supersonic cruise or subsonic
loitering.
The sixth generation fighter will likely have directed energy
weapons—high-powered microwaves and lasers for defense against incoming
missiles or as offensive weapons themselves. Munitions would likely be
of the “dial an effect” type, able to cause anything from impairment to
destruction of an air or ground target.
Materials and microelectronics technologies would combine to make the
aircraft a large integrated sensor, possibly eliminating the need for a
nose radar as it is known today. It would be equipped for making cyber
attacks as well as achieving kinetic effects, but would still have to be
cost-effective to make, service, and modify.
Moreover, the rapid advancement of unmanned aircraft technologies could,
in 20 years or so, make feasible production of an autonomous robotic
fighter. However, that is considered less likely than the emergence of
an uninhabited but remotely piloted aircraft with an off-board “crew,”
possibly comprising many operators.
Not clear, yet, is whether the mission should be fulfilled by a single,
multirole platform or a series of smaller, specialized aircraft, working
in concert.
“I think this next round [of fighter development] is probably going to
be dominated by ever-increasing amounts of command and control
information,” said Paul K. Meyer, vice president and general manager of
Northrop Grumman’s Advanced Programs and Technology Division.
Meyer forecast that vast amounts of data will be available to the pilot,
who may or may not be on board the aircraft. The pilot will see
wide-ranging, intuitive views of “the extended world” around the
aircraft, he noted. The aircraft will collect its own data and
seamlessly fuse it with off-board sensors, including those on other
aircraft. The difference from fifth generation will be the level of
detail and certainty—the long-sought automatic target recognition.
Directed Energy Weapons
Embedded sensors and microelectronics will also make possible sensor
arrays in “locations that previously weren’t available because of either
heat or the curvature of the surface,” providing more powerful and
comprehensive views of the battlefield, Meyer noted. Although the
aircraft probably won’t be autonomous, he said, it will be able to
“learn” and advise the pilot as to what actions to take—specifically,
whether a target should be incapacitated temporarily, damaged, or
destroyed.
Traditional electronics will probably give way to photonics, said Darryl
W. Davis, president of Boeing’s advanced systems division.
“You could have fewer wires,” said Davis. “You’re on a multiplexed,
fiber-optic bus ... that connects all the systems, and because you can
do things at different wavelengths of light, you can move lots of data
around airplanes much faster, with much less weight in terms of ... wire
bundles.”
Fiber optics would also be resistant to jamming or spoofing of data and less ****e to cyber attack.
A “digital wingman” could accompany the main fighter as an extra
sensor-shooter smart enough to take verbal instructions, Meyer
forecasted.
Directed energy weapons could play a big role in deciding how agile a
sixth generation fighter would have to be, Meyer noted. “Speed of light”
weapons, he added, could “negate” the importance of “the
maneuverability we see in today’s fashionable fighters.” There won’t be
time to maneuver away from a directed energy attack.
Pulse weapons could also fry an enemy aircraft’s systems—or those of a
ground target. Based on what “we have seen and we make at Northrop
Grumman,” Meyer said, “in the next 20 years ... that type of technology
is going to be available.”
With an appropriate engine—possibly an auxiliary engine—on board to
provide power for directed energy weapons, there could be an “unlimited
magazine” of shots, Meyer said.
Hypersonics—that is, the ability of an air vehicle to travel at five
times the speed of sound, or faster—has routinely been suggested as an
attribute of sixth generation fighters, but the industry leaders are
skeptical the capability will be ready in time.
While there have been some successes with experimental hypersonic
propulsion, the total amount of true hypersonic flying time is less than
15 minutes, and the leap to an operational fighter in 20 years might be
a leap too far.
“It entails a whole new range of materials development, due to ...
sensors, fuzes, apertures, etc.,” Meyer noted, “all of which must
operate in that intense heat environment at ... Mach 5-plus.”
Still, “it is indeed an option that we would consider” because targets
will be fleeting and require quick, surgical strikes at great distances.
However, such an approach would probably be incompatible with a
loitering capability.
Davis said he thinks hypersonics “will start to show up in sixth
generation,” but not initially as the platform’s power plant, but rather
in the aircraft’s kinetic munitions.
“I think it will start with applications to weapons,” Davis said. And
they may not necessarily be just weapons but “high-speed reconnaissance
platforms for short missions on the way to the target.”
Because of the extreme speed of hypersonic platforms and especially
directed energy weapons, Davis thinks it will be critical to have
“persistent eyes on target” because speed-of-light weapons can’t be
recalled “once you’ve pulled the trigger,” and even at hypersonic speed,
a target may move before the weapon arrives. That would suggest a
flotilla of stealthy drones or sensors positioned around the
battlefield.
Not only will hypersonics require years more work, Davis said it must be
combined with other, variable-cycle engines that will allow an aircraft
to take off from sea level, climb to high altitude, and then engage a
hypersonic engine. Those enabling propulsion elements are not
necessarily near at hand in a single package.
The sixth generation fighter, whatever it turns out to be, will still be
a machine and will need to be serviced, repaired, and modified,
according to Neil Kacena, deputy director of Lockheed Martin’s Skunk
Works advanced projects division. He is less confident that major
systems such as radar will be embedded in the aircraft skin.
“If the radar doesn’t work, and now you have to take the wing off, ...
then that may not be the technology that will find its way onto a sixth
gen aircraft,” he said. In designing the next fighter, life cycle costs
will be crucial, and so practical considerations will have to be
accommodated.
Toward that end, he said, Lockheed Martin is working on new composite
manufacturing techniques that use far fewer fasteners, less costly
tooling, and therefore lower start-up and sustainment costs. It
demonstrated those technologies recently on the Advanced Composite Cargo
Aircraft program.
Given the anticipated capabilities of the Russian and Chinese fifth
generation fighters, when will a sixth generation aircraft have to be
available?
Davis said the Air Force and Navy, not industry, will have to decide how
soon they need a new generation of fighters. However, “if the services
are thinking they need something in 2020” when foreign fifth generation
fighters could be proliferating in large numbers, “we’re going to have
to do some things to our existing generation of platforms,” such as add
the directed energy weapons or other enhancements.
Kacena agreed, saying that Lockheed Martin has “engaged with both
services and supplied them data and our perspectives” about the next
round of fighter development. If the need exists to make a true quantum
leap, then sixth generation is the way to go, but, “if it’s driven by
the reduction in force structure [and] ... the equipment is just getting
old and worn out in that time frame, then [we] may very well be on a
path of continuous improvement of fifth generation capabilities.”
Lockheed Martin makes both the F-22 and F-35.
He said the company’s goal is to find the knee in the curve where “you
get them the most bang for the buck without an 80 to 90 percent
solution. Something that doesn’t take them beyond the nonlinear increase
in cost.”
Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for
intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance and a fighter pilot, said the
next fighter generation may well have characteristics fundamentally
different from any seen today, but he urged defense decision-makers to
keep an open mind and not ignore hard-learned lessons from history.
Although great strides have been made in unmanned aircraft, said
Deptula, “we have a long way to go to achieve the degree of 360-degree
spherical situation awareness, rapid assimilation of information, and
translation of that information into action that the human brain, linked
with its on-site sensors, can accomplish.”
Numbers Count, Too
Despite rapid increases in computer processing power, it will be
difficult for a machine to cope with “an infinite number of potential
situations that are occurring in split seconds,” Deptula added, noting
that, until such a capability is proved, “we will still require manned
aircraft.”
It’s important to note that America’s potential adversaries will have
access to nearly all the technologies now only resident with US forces,
Deptula said. Thinking 20 to 30 years out, it will be necessary to
invest properly to retain things US forces depend on, such as air
superiority.
However, he warned not to put too much emphasis on technology, per se.
“Just as precision air weapons and, to a certain degree, cyberspace are
redefining our definition of mass in today’s fight, we have to be very
wary of how quickly ‘mass’ in its classic sense can return in an era of
mass-precision and mass-cyber capabilities for all.”
In other words, numbers count, and too few fighters, even if they are extremely advanced, are still too few.
Hanging over the sixth generation fighter debate is this stark fact: The
relevant program should now be well under way, but it has not even been
defined. If the Pentagon wants a sixth generation capability, it will
have to demonstrate that intent, and soon. Industry needs that clear
signal if it is to invest its own money in developing the technologies
needed to make the sixth generation fighter come about.
Moreover, the sixth generation program is necessary to keep the US
aerospace industry on the cutting edge. Unless it is challenged, if the
“90 percent” solution is needed in the future, industry may not be able
to answer the call.
Under Gates, Pentagon technology leaders have said they want to avoid
cost and schedule problems by deferring development until technologies
are more mature. Unfortunately, this safe and steady approach does not
stimulate leap-ahead technologies.
Meyer said, “We need to have challenges to our innovative thoughts, our
engineering talents, our technology integration and development that
would ... push us ... to the point where industry has to perform beyond
expectations.”
He noted that today’s F-35 is predicated on largely proven technologies
and “affordability,” but it was the B-2 and F-22 programs that really
paved the way for the systems that underpin modern air combat.
The B-2 bomber, he noted, “was a program of significant discovery,”
because it involved a great deal of invention to meet required
performance. The B-2 demanded “taking ... basic research and developing
it in the early ... phases” of the program, which yielded nonfaceted
stealth, enhanced range and payload, nuclear hardening, new antennas,
radars, and flight controls.
Today, Meyer said, most programs are entering full-scale development
only when they’ve reached a technology readiness level of six or higher.
“We probably had elements on the B-2 ... that were at four, and a lot at five,” Meyer said.
Programs such as the sixth generation fighter “are the ones we relish
because they make us think, they make us take risks that we wouldn’t
normally take, and in taking on those risks we’ve discovered the new
technologies that have made our industry great,” he asserted.
Davis said that other countries are going to school on the US fighter industry and taking its lessons to heart.
“We still think you have to build things—fly them and test them—in order
to know what works and what doesn’t,” said Davis. “And, at some point,
if you don’t do that, just do it theoretically, it doesn’t get you where
you need to be.”
He added, “If we don’t continue to move forward, they will catch us.”
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...09fighter.aspx
Russia announces start of work on sixth-generation fighter jet
Russia has announced the start of work on the creation of a
sixth-generation fighter jet. The body is to be made of composite
materials and it should attain high speeds and have the latest
electronic warfare equipment, avionics, and a propulsion system.
However, the kind of combat missions the new vehicle will be expected to
fulfill are unclear.
Russian designers have already started work on the creation of a sixth-generation
fighter jet, according to director general of the Foundation for Advanced
Research Andrei Grigoryev, who informed journalists of
the development at the Open Innovations Forum in Moscow last week.
“Our task is to lay the groundwork for the creation of a
sixth-generation
fighter jet. Such projects are also now being considered. They are primarily
associated with materials and engines,” he said. According to Grigoryev, the
new plane will be manufactured from composite materials.
Number Six’s new look
Although comments made by a number of specialists from the aircraft
industry or the Russian Air Force indicate that while work on the project has
already begun, a common vision for the aircraft is yet to be worked out, the
general approaches to the project are well-known.
The aircraft's body will be made of a highly durable and lightweight
composite material. The fighter jet must possess not only supersonic speed but
must be able to attain hypersonic – over Mach 6-7 – speeds at certain stages of
flight. Not every metal is capable of withstanding the heating of the fuselage
at such a speed, meaning that the creation of a new composite capable of
meeting all of these requirements is necessary.
“Number Six” needs a new and powerful engine able to function not only
in the atmosphere, but also in airless space. It cannot be excluded that one of
the tasks of the new craft will involve exiting into open space and flying in
an orbital trajectory.
Also needed are a new antenna system and avionics system capable of
functioning effectively and stably in all flight modes and all circumstances
and of maintaining constant communication with ground and air command centers
and spacecraft, as well as an onboard electronic warfare system designed not
only to suppress the communication and control systems of a potential opponent
but also to neutralize air-to-air or surface-to-air missiles.
If everything regarding the ‘filling’ of the aircraft and its lining
materials is clear, then the main question is whether a sixth-generation craft should
be manned or unmanned. The advantage of an unmanned craft is that there are no
risks to the life of a pilot, the preparation and training of whom costs
immense sums of money and takes a rather long time.
Additionally, a drone does not require a human life-support system onboard
and its flight time is not tied to the physical capabilities of a pilot.
However, a robotic drone, no matter how highly intelligent its electronic
computing system, must be controlled from the ground by operator commands. And
these, for various reasons, can fail to transmit or be delayed. This fact alone
speaks to the advantage of a fighter jet operated by a combat pilot.
Who will jet be fighting against?
Some things remain unclear regarding combat tasks. Who will the sixth-generation
fighter jet be battling against? There are only three or four countries today
capable of creating a fifth-generation fighter jet. One of these is the U.S.,
which already has F-22s and F-35s in the air – one of them even participated in
bombing Islamic State terrorists in Syria. Another is China, which has
disseminated photographs of its fifth-generation fighter jet on the web, as
well as India, which is creating such an aircraft in cooperation with the
Russian company Sukhoi.
However, it is very difficult to imagine any of these states, which
incidentally have nuclear missile arsenals along with fighter jets, going to war
against each other. The risk of receiving a nuclear missile strike in response
to aggression is simply too great.
Then against whom will the fifth- and sixth-generation fighter jet be directed?
As of yet, there are no definitive answers. For now, the work on the creation
of the “fighter jet of the future” is still on the drawing board and its designers,
along with the military men ordering its production, need to come to a common
understanding regarding the shape the future combat vehicle will take, and the
missions and targets that it, its weaponry, and its pilot will face in the
future.
The opinion of the writer may not necessarily reflect the position of RBTH or its staff.
http://nextbigfuture.com/
Next generation F/A-XX fighter should have hypersonic weapons, lasers and supersonic cruise
Northrop Grumman has stood up a pair of teams dedicated to developing a "sixth-generation" fighter
for both the Navy and Air Force, years before the US Navy or Air Force
intends to issue requests for information on potential replacements for
current aircraft.
The Air Force and Navy have begun preliminary planning for what is
referred to as next-generation air dominance, or "sixth-generation"
fighters. After working together on the F-35 joint strike fighter, the
two services are looking at procuring their own respective jets.
The Navy's program is dubbed F/A-XX, while the Air Force's effort is
known as F-X. In September, Col. Tom Coglitore, Air Superiority Core
Function Team chief at Air Combat Command, told Defense News he wants to
see Milestone A acquisition activity in early fiscal 2018.
Northrop is looking at a supersonic, tailless airplane design as a
potential solution. making a system optionally manned would be
relatively easy Grumman.
Navy F/A-XX developers seek to engineer a sixth-generation aircraft, they will likely explore a range of next-generation
technologies such as maximum sensor connectivity, super cruise ability
and an aircraft with electronically configured “smart skins.
Boeing F/A XX concept
Navy officials are not only meeting with established development teams like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman,
but "outside the box" efforts including not focusing on manned or
unmanned platforms and FoS approaches are to reduce costs and make it
more effective. One option could create a minimum cost F/A-XX that uses
high cost, high performance weapons to defeat threats; according to the
Navy's Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) battle
network concept, an individual platform would not need to have a full
suite of sensors and rely on off-board data-linked information from
other platforms to provide targeting information and guide weapons
launched from the platform. Rather than be a Super Hornet or F-35C that
can engage on its own, the F/A-XX could be a "truck" with longer-range
weapons with linked fire control. The F/A-XX platforms will be made to
carry missiles, have power and cooling systems for directed energy
weapons, and have sensors that can target small radar cross-section
targets; cyber warfare platforms at a tactical level as part of a FoS
are being explored. While the Navy is working with the U.S. Air Force on
a next-generation tactical fighter, there is significant disagreement
over the Air Force's claims that adaptive-cycle jet engine technology,
where the ratios of bypass and compression airflow can be made variable
to improve efficiency, can be scaled to benefit a carrier-based fighter.
Hypersonic Scramjets
The new aircraft might also seek to develop the ability to fire
hypersonic weapons, however such a development would hinge upon
successful progress with yet-to-be-proven technologies such as
scramjets, Aboulafia added.
Super cruise technology would enable the new fighter jet to cruise at
supersonic speeds without needing afterburner, he explained.
Smart aircraft skins would involve dispersing certain technologies or
sensors across the fuselage and further integrating them into the
aircraft itself
SOURCES- Wikipedia, defence news, defence tech
