Rise of the 6th Generation Fighter ...

By: bring_it_on - 23rd June 2013 at 10:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

DARPA is studying requirements for a 6th gen fighter and what to expect from such a weapons system.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/darpa-working-on-sixth-generation-fighter-study-385112/

Meanwhile just as the ATF program, the FAXX effort is to seek industry solutions to a capability that is demanded by the navy. In such proposals the industry has relatively greater freedom to suggest what sort of technologies, capabilities it can deliver at the time lines the service is looking for. Other capabilities would be developed outside the program itself. For example Propulsion technology refinement and development would be taken care of by the ADVENT-->AETD programs, and risk reduction would be to a satisfactory level by 2018 or so, so as to start a program on your own. The USN has a different way of doing things then the USAF, they have a different of shoot program from the ADVENT that is more focused on delivering to their needs, and the USAF has branched off to the AETD.

By: bring_it_on - 10th July 2013 at 16:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Interview of Rear Adm. Bill Moran Director of AIr warfare USN...

Q. Where are you today on what you think the sixth-generation aircraft is?

A. We don’t talk in terms of generations of airplanes. It’s really ill-defined in my view, and mostly wrapped around stealth technology. So we are not in the business of trying to design and build a sixth-generation air wing. I do not even talk about sixth generation. But I do talk about where our aircraft quantities start to run out of service life.

The bulk of our force today are Super Hornets and they will be there for a long time, out until the end of the 2020s, early 2030s timeframe. But then that need starts to occur when the airplanes reach 9,000 hours of service life. When that happens, we are either going to buy a bunch more F-35Cs, or we are going to have to start looking at capability that we can replace the capability set, the mission set that the F/A-18 E/Fs do today.

We are taking an approach called FA-XX. We’ll [start a study] next year that would assess all those missions the F/A-18 E/F plugs into, in the air wing. How could we capture those capabilities in another way instead of buying another very high-end, very expensive platform replacement? Certainly there will be platforms involved, but do they have to be platforms that look and feel and operate much like an F/A-18 E/F or an F-35 does today? Could it be done differently? Could we do the mission sets different?

For example, we talk a lot to NAVAIR [Naval Air Systems Command] about future designs being more of a truck that has an open architecture design, so you can plug different sensors, different payloads and weapons into that for a specific mission, and be able to move those sensors and payloads around so you can do multiple different missions on different days, or different sorties, instead of trying to build everything into a jet — that becomes very expensive.

It is very much in line with [the direction of Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations], where he talked about payloads over platforms. In other words, the payload piece is what is important. Getting the right payload in the right place, at the right time is also critical. But what kind of truck that payload rides around on is what we are really after.

So we want to look holistically at all of the things that contribute to a mission. They include space-based. They include other platforms that are already part of the air wing — E-2D Hawkeyes, EA-18G Growlers — and the rotary wing component. How do we do a system-of-systems look across all of those platforms, and decide what capability gaps we need to cover as the F/A-18 E/Fs start to fall off?

Now we try to tell industry that we are just opening up the aperture to have a conversation about what they think the art of the possible is. I have had some great discussions with industry partners about this. Do not just look to walk in here with a new design, a sixth-generation aircraft. I am not interested in that conversation yet. I am interested in what are the technologies that you think you can bring? And specifically propulsion, which drives future capability. That is the timeline driver. If you are looking at a game-changing propulsion capability, whether it is long dwell, fast and high, all of those types of attributes to a propulsion capability, we have got to start working that now to lead to whatever the truck looks like.

And as you are developing that propulsion capability, then you can start to look at what kind of payloads? What kind of sensors? What kind of integrating capability that you want to develop across the air wing, so you continue to have the same effect of a different shape, a different mix of an air wing in the future.

Q. Do you think about unmanned aerial vehicles?

A. You could look at small UAVs launched off a truck that do different mission sets currently done by larger platforms that are very costly or expensive. There are lots of [concept of operations] questions that come into play as we study this. And of course, now you are trying to project a threat that is in the 2030s and ’40s and even in the ’50s — and what that threat could evolve to. That is going to drive a lot of how you view what the air wing ought to look like that far out.

So it really is our opportunity right now, while we are building F-35s, while we are continuing to mature F/A-18 E/Fs to deal with the ’20s and ’30s. What are we looking at beyond that?

When you look at normal development plans that take an average of 17 years for aviation, we are at that point right now if we are truly going to get to a 2030 capability. But we are not bought into [whether] it has to be a high-end fighter, or a high-end anything. What we do know is that we need to design it to allow us the most flexibility in how we operate that, whatever it is in the future.

Do not wait for us to tell you line by line what the requirement is. We are way too early in that. I need to understand what you think are the possibilities in propulsion, sensors, networks, architecture. All of those things have to be designed into whatever this thing might look like in the future.

Q. You issued a request for information (RFI) about a year ago for the next fighter. What were the responses?

A. Official responses are highly classified; we are parsing through with a team at NAVAIR and in our Special Programs branch. And they are intriguing. They run the gamut of, here is our aircraft design of the future, to here is a capability design of the future. And somewhere in there is our trade space and how we are going to view this.

But again, it just opens up the conversation. We are very early in this. And what we hope to do is now take that process into an analysis of alternatives, a formal AOA, that will take a couple of years to complete because it is very complex. We hope to get it started in 2014.

Q. The logical responders to the RFI would be Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman. Are you interested also in hearing from conceptual groups, not necessarily aircraft manufacturers?

A. The major folks have all jumped in, and to the degree to which we have maybe some others that might want to contribute in a different way, I could not tell you right now. But I want to hear from people who think completely outside our normal acquisition process.

Q. What is your thinking about a manned versus unmanned fighter?

A. What we said in the RFI was, we want you to think manned, unmanned and optionally manned. We are not trying to drive a solution here. And we recognize there might be different mixes of those options that are more effective in the ’30s and ’40s than what we have today. But we want to understand why you think that. What are the capabilities they bring? And then let’s have a discussion.

Q. Are you driving to introduce an aircraft around 2030?

A. Yes. See, everybody wants to dive right back into, do you want a platform? And my answer is, I know I am going to start to lose the capability set that Super Hornet brings to the air wing today, starting in the late ’20s or early ’30s. So what capabilities can we start designing that replace that, the mission sets that the Super Hornet does today? When you think there are at least nine or 10 different missions the Super Hornet contributes to today, does it have to be done by the same very advanced, complex capable airplane platform?

Q. Do you envision that say, in 2040, the FA-XX will completely replace the F-35 along with the Super Hornets? Or will it serve alongside the F-35?

A. This effort is not at all to replace the F-35 — it is almost if you flip it upside down. When you look out in the ’30s and ’40s, what we are aiming to do is to complement what the F-35 brings, much like the F-35 will complement what the F-18s currently bring and deliver in the air wing. Today, there is a graceful, gradual replacing of legacy Hornets with F-35s. As the F-18 population starts to run out of service life, we have got to bring in a new capability that complements what the F-35 brings.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130710/DEFREG02/307100015

By: bring_it_on - 10th July 2013 at 17:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Range is never enough :), The problem here is how much range to get from the F-35 and what tradeoffs to make. Do you look to replace the heavy long haulers (F-15E) as well with the F-16 replacement? How much range is OK with Moderate stealth, vs VLO etc etc etc This is the complex analysis that the folks with the know how and authority are making and will continue to evaluate. With propulsion developments in full swing (funding) you can up the range by 20-30% in about a decade (or sooner)...The FA-XX would be something the USN would have to decide as far as basic air frame is concerned...Do they try to go for a fast and high interceptor to protect the carrier wing? Do they go for A2A optimized multi role fighter...Do they go for a bomb truck with a ton of electronics that does the electronic warfare mission, the strike mission (at longer ranges), etc etc ...Industry has to give them cues here, since its best to jointly work with all parties concerned (Industry, DARPA, services) to chart out what technology is deliverable by 2030.

By: bring_it_on - 10th July 2013 at 19:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I think the approach they are currently looking at is fairly good going forward. Look at the capability gap that would exist when the F-18E/F's begin to retire. Look at the other existing platforms (manned & Unmanned) that can fill in the gaps, then see which capability is worth going in for a new platform. All the while, work in house (USN) , with DARPA and industry and see what technological breakthroughs are available 10 years, 15 years, 20 years down the road and then go on and design a weapons system based on that, agencies like ONI etc would chip in with input of the threat level in 2030-2050 time frame, the idea being to design a flexible platform that can grow over time to add capability when required (and when available). Propulsion, like i said earlier is seeing a resurgence in funding, with the ADVENT winding down, and P&W coming on board to work on a Variable cycle engine of their own. GE has a head start with the F-120 here...All in propulsion is going to be ready well before the 2030 deadline..DEW's are interesting, because as per the original "PLAN" they are planned for 5.5 gen time-lines (ABC program already underway for the F-35, being lead by Lockheed)...The rest is left up to DARPA and industry to come up with...I expect the USN to take over majority R&D for air-superiority funding, while the USAF keeps itself busy with the LRS-B so expect a lot of off-shoots of the DARPA-USAF-USN joint studies to be actually funded by the USN.

By: bring_it_on - 11th July 2013 at 03:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

There is absolutely no way that this aircraft would be jointly developed with the marines. The marines need nothing new for the fixed wing fleet beyond the F-35B. The USAF is more likely to come in, but even then its going to be rather unlikely given that the USAF is going to be spending a ton of money (50+ billion dollars as per some estimates) on developing the LRS-B between now and 2025, and then are going to be engaged in its acquisition program for years beyond that. I do not see the FA-XX as a pipe dream, as i fully expect the USN to want and GET two different fighters for their air wing.

By: bring_it_on - 10th August 2013 at 14:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

By: bring_it_on - 11th August 2013 at 05:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The program is in the RFI stage....