Rise of the 6th Generation Fighter ...

By: bring_it_on - 28th January 2015 at 22:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

If one followed the DARPA press conference on technological surprises a few years ago when the head of the agency first spoke of the ADI and how the USAF, USN and DARPA are working at defining capabilities and technologies that they would require for the future one would see this as a logical next step. She said then that the discussions would lead to some program activity in the 2015 budget cycle and beyond. This is right around the time-line she predicted. Northrop recently went on a PR blitz flying reporters to its plants and sharing its ambitions to compete on both the FA-XX and F-X programs. That was probably in anticipation of some budget activity relatively soon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8giv-1v54JU&list=WL#t=1266

By: bring_it_on - 28th January 2015 at 23:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Not only that, you have a finite number of F-22's with a fairly small range of life irrespective of whether they get a SLEP or not. You have the F-15C's that would also begin to retire off without having F-22's coming off the line. The USAF would do well to have a fighter in service between 2030-2035 or so. The USN still has the option of extending the Super Hornet and adding some more years before they have to make the bulk of the FA-XX investments. It all depends on how much they want to spend on tactical fighter platforms. What I am fascinated with is whether the USAF could get a full fledge, no fuss air to air assets with the F-x, or whether they would have to make those compromises for a more multi-role project.

Personally I would love them to just do the X-44 :)

http://www.docdroid.net/qbp4/x44.pdf.html

By: bring_it_on - 28th January 2015 at 23:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Lets wait and see ;)

By: bring_it_on - 29th January 2015 at 02:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Basically anything is possible until there is a program that is consistently funded. It is encouraging however to see them moving along quite in line with what had been claimed a couple of years back. The talk back then was that it was " just a talk", and skeptics were waiting to see if it ever materialized to something. Well it seems that whatever was hinted back then is slowly coming to light. No one needs to be flying full fledged weapons system prototypes at this point, as that would most likely come a decade from now. What is encouraging that there is a movement on awarding design and development work and possibly funding some X planes. These efforts along with the consistent investment in propulsion would make sure that there is significant amount of risk reduction activity to involve some of the high end technologies for a future F-22, and F-18E/F replacement program whether that is in the late 2020's, or 2030's. Obviously the USAF is not planning on ditching the F-35 altogether and never again developing another fighter and I doubt anyone is claiming that either although I wouldn't be surprised if there are folks around the world and possibly here that believe that the F-35 would be the sole new fighter in the USAF till perhaps the 2040's or 2050's because there is not enough money or because of x y z.

Yet predicting the future has been a very dangerous task. If one were to read what the pundits had to say in the late 90's one would have thought that either A) there would have been no money for the JSF or B) that the USAF would have a tailless fighter in the "early 2000's" as was being claimed by some media sources.

This is just one technology effort under a larger study that the USAF, USN and DARPA began a few years ago. They decided to come together and start the discussion and planning process for the air dominance mission in the 2030's and beyond. This is a result of that and has been included in the budget to further the technology which would be fairly consistent with traditional development cycles given how far out the expected service entry is. It is not the first time that the USAF or the USN are intending upon buying 2 fighters at the same time or developing the technology for one while procuring the other. It is also not the first time the services or DARPA have funded X planes with the purpose of advancing technology for future projects.

Pentagon Unveils Program to Help Build 6th Generation Fighter

The Pentagon is poised to unveil a new collaborative research program in the upcoming 2016 defense budget submission which will seek to identify and develop dominant, next-generation aircraft technologies for the Air Force and Navy.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, mentioned the effort Wednesday to lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee at a hearing on Pentagon technology and acquisition reform.

The new research program will involve the Pentagon’s research arm, called the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency, or DARPA. It will focus on new airframe and engine technology for future jet fighters, cargo planes and unmanned systems. Among other topics, the research effort will work closely on what 6th–generation fighter aircraft technologies will be needed to build an aircraft to succeed the 5th–generation F-35.

Various new designs for Navy and Air Force airplanes will be identified as “X”-planes, a Pentagon term often used to signify a yet-to-be-named platform under early development.

The Navy is in the early conceptual stages of an effort called F/A-XX designed to replace the F-18 in the 2030s. Service officials have not said much about this effort, in part because it is so early and there is plenty of scrutiny on the fifth generation fighters.

“Smart skins” which connect the fuselage with computer technology, super cruise ability and hypersonic speeds are among some of the technical attributes deemed likely to inform future designs, analysts maintain.

Lt. Gen. Mark Ramsay director, force structure, resources and assessment for the Joint Staff, told HASC lawmakers the new effort involves air and space domain innovation initiatives.

“We’re looking at domains and how we are going to fight the future fight,” Ramsay told the committee.

When asked by a lawmaker, Ramsay said it would probably take about 15-years to develop a new, fully-developmental next-generation aircraft to replace the A-10 Warthog.

The rationale for the new effort hinges upon a much discussed global phenomenon – the pace of technological and military modernization of potential adversaries and near peer competitors such as China and Russia. There may well be a need for the U.S. to develop and field a 6th generation fighter aircraft because both Russia and China are known to be developing stealth aircraft engineered potentially to challenge the F-35.

“We are at risk and things are getting worse. I came back to the Pentagon in 2010 after being away. The intelligence estimates when I left in 1994 were that China was really not much of a problem for us but in 10 or 15 years they could be based on their economic rate of growth. The intelligence estimates were correct,” Kendall told the committee.

Numerous Pentagon and Congressional reports have detailed public information regarding the rapid growth of China’s missile arsenal, naval fleet, ground army and anti-satellite technologies.

Kendall said the U.S. no longer enjoys the overwhelming technological superiority it had during and after the first Gulf War in 1991. As many remember, the first Gulf War featured the combat debut of some precision guided weapons just as Joint Direct Attack Munitions or JDAMs, some stealth technologies and other kinds of military innovations. This military superiority has lasted more than 25-years and has served the U.S. well in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia and Libya, Kendall explained in a written statement.

“I became alarmed as soon as I started seeing technical intelligence reports on China’s modernization programs. I could say the same of Russia’s modernization programs as well. We came out of the Cold War with a very dominant military. We demonstrated that military conclusively in the first Gulf War and we used it effectively against any conventional force since. Since 2001 we’ve been involved in counter insurgency,” Kendall said. “The precision-munitions revolution that we demonstrated has been emulated by others.”

In particular, Kendall explained how certain potential adversaries are deliberately developing systems and technologies designed to counter U.S. high-value assets such as satellites, air fields and aircraft carriers.

Potential adversaries such as China, Russia and Iran have studied U.S. military superiority and have been closing the gap, in part by fielding precision missiles able to threaten U.S. power projection capabilities.

For example, the Chinese military is developing a long-range anti-ship cruise missile, the DF-21D, said by analysts to have a range up to 900 nautical miles. While there is some speculation as to whether it could succeed in striking moving targets such as aircraft carriers, analysts have said the weapon is in part designed to keep carriers from operating closer to the coastline.

“Some countries, China particularly, but also Russia and others, are clearly developing sophisticated weapons designed to defeat our power-projection forces. Even if war with the U.S. is unlikely or unintended, it is quite obvious to me that the foreign investments I see in military modernization have the objective of enabling the countries concerned to deter and defeat a regional intervention by the U.S. military,” said Kendall in a written statement to the committee.

The U.S. relies on high-value assets such as airfields, aircraft carriers and space-based satellites, for intelligence, targeting, communication and the ability to project power, Kendall said. These assets could potentially be targeted by high-tech, long-range precision-guided ballistic and cruise missiles, Kendall explained.

Large numbers of accurate, technologically advanced missiles such as this could potentially get through the best of current U.S. air defense systems, Kendall said.

“We have been doing some things to try to address the problem. This is a serious problem for the country. It is not just missiles it is other things such as electronic warfare capability, anti-satellite capability – a number of things which I think that are being developed very consciously to defeat the American way of projecting power. We need to respond to that,” Kendall said.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/

By: bring_it_on - 29th January 2015 at 04:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

By: bring_it_on - 29th January 2015 at 13:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

X planes in the x35 mode or something more general (and less indicative of a final airframe) like the x29 or x31?

Probably the latter because I seriously doubt that they would have the RFP's down to anything remotely resembling the final version in the next couple of years. I think what they may wish to do is look at a couple of design teams, fund them to prototype stage, keep on funding them to de-risk their proposal and then make the call on the contract between early to mid 2020's. One of the main objectives of the ADI and the AII was/is to reduce the "lead times" so as to introduce capability faster and for that you would have to make larger R&D investments upfront rather then take time to develop a requirement and then dump a heck of a lot of dollars towards the last few years. The aim is to have tech de-risked in different areas such as propulsion, airframe etc before the services embark on a full fledged program of their own. That bit would be done jointly along with DARPA as this is what the agency does well (manage high risk development programs).

It seems to me they would need an X plane to demonstrate a tailless delta.

Not sure whether they would be that specific but it is a possibility that one (if there are more than 1) would exhibit that feature. Lockheed still has the tail on their version released to the public while Boeing does not, and Northrop claims that it intends to do away with it as well.

By: bring_it_on - 29th January 2015 at 14:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

GE Details Sixth-Generation Adaptive Fighter Engine Plan

U.S. military planners have now broadly accepted that the only way to meet the advanced performance needs of “sixth-generation” combat aircraft, barring changes to the laws of physics, will be the adoption of variable-cycle, or adaptive engine technology.
The future fighter will be required to not only fly farther than today’s aircraft, but will also need more speed and power when engaging the enemy. But from a propulsion perspective, up until now these objectives have been mutually exclusive. Longer range and subsonic loiter require lower fuel burn and good cruise efficiency, while higher thrust for supersonic dash demands larger cores and much higher operating temperatures, neither of which is good for fuel burn or stealth.

To solve this conundrum and combine both capabilities in one propulsion system, engine makers are working under the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program to test technology for a new generation of engines that can be reconfigured in flight. Although AETD is set to end with a flight-weight core demonstration in 2016, the Air Force is planning a follow-on initiative called the Adaptive Engine Transfer Program (AETP). This will pave the way for an adaptive, 45,000-lb.-thrust-class combat powerplant for sixth-generation combat aircraft as well as the possible reengining of the Lockheed Martin F-35 in the 2020s.

General Electric, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce are all expected to bid for AETP which is set to start in September. The four-year effort will mature adaptive engine technologies and reduce risk in readiness for a competitive engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) program.

.....

The move to AETP is the latest of a series of major Air Force-backed initiatives to steer the variable-cycle concept toward a generational change in fighter-engine performance. Starting in 2006, with the launch of AFRL’s five-year Advent (Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology) program, GE and Rolls-Royce North America each developed high-pressure-ratio cores and adaptive-fan, variable-bypass, low-pressure system technology. Aimed at cutting combat-engine specific fuel consumption (SFC) by 25% compared with early 2000 baseline fighter engines, Advent tackled key technology challenges including maintaining constant engine flow with variable-fan-pressure ratios and dealing with higher-than-ever hot-section temperatures. Advent also saw development of methods for modulating cooling air that was itself cooled, and newer, simpler exhaust system designs. GE expects to complete a detailed assessment of its Advent engine with AFRL sometime this month.

Rolls-Royce began Advent core tests in late 2012 but has not discussed further milestones. GE, which ran its Advent core test in 2013, exceeded AFRL’s temperature goal by more than 130F, achieving an Air Force-validated record for the highest combined compressor and turbine temperature operation “in the history of jet engine propulsion,” says the engine maker. “We found the core could efficiently generate the power that would be needed for a three-stream architecture,” says Daniel McCormick, GE Military Systems Operation, Advanced Combat Engine Programs general manager. “It validated the 25% fuel-efficiency goals set by AFRL which translates into a 30%-plus-range improvement for the platform,” he adds. The core, which notched up 60 hr. of testing, was followed by the first full three-stream demonstrator engine, which ran from November 2013 to July 2014.

The Advent turbofan test was “extremely successful,” but also revealed some unexpected and highly relevant information. “One of the things we found with adaptive engines is that modeling techniques for understanding the performance of adaptive cycles is well-tuned, but modeling adaptive three-stream engines is a little different. Some of it we got right and some of it [we have to reexamine]. The turbofan engine has been an extremely valuable tool for us,” notes McCormick.

.....

Advent broke ground for the subsequent AETD effort, for which GE and Pratt were selected over Rolls in 2012. The program is aimed at technology for a new combat-aircraft engine with 25% lower thrust-specific fuel consumption, but 5% more military power and 10% higher maximum thrust than Pratt’s F135. AETD therefore goes beyond Advent in terms of efficiency and power, and unlike the smaller cores used in the initial effort, which were aimed at B-2 bomber-type power ranges, is based around a larger core.

Although GE initially aimed to size its AETD engine to suit the future U.S. Navy F/A-XX and Air Force F-X sixth-gen fighters, respectively, the precise thrust requirements for these remain “very rubbery,” says McCormick. With major questions unresolved—whether these will be one- or two-engine aircraft, for example—GE “defaulted to the F-35,” as the basis for its engine plan.

......

For true sixth-generation-fighter applications, however, the third-stream benefits will be channeled to supporting advanced weapons and systems, as well as performance. It is “almost a given that directed energy weapons will be in play for these future platforms,” says McCormick. He anticipates a power offtake requirement for at least 1 megawatt. “We are trying to define the design space. Under a portion of AETD, we are conducting next-gen trade studies. Money is flowing from AFRL to GE and we are funding the three aircraft manufacturers [Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman] to work with us as part of these trade studies.”

“The vision of AFRL is that those studies will help weapon system contractors inform aircraft capability as an analysis of alternatives (AOA) progresses forward,” he says. “What’s in the art of the possible? That is evolving over time.” The AOA is in the planning stage and has not yet been launched by the Air Force or the Navy, he adds.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/ge-details-sixth-generation-adaptive-fighter-engine-plan?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20150129_AW-19_838&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&YM_RID=CPEN1000000230026&YM_MID=1622

Successful Rotating CMC Part Demo For Future GE Fighter Engines Staged

General Electric has validated the temperature capabilities and durability of low-pressure turbine blades made from lightweight ceramic matrix composites (CMC) in an F414 turbofan, opening the door for greater use of the advanced material in combat engines for sixth-generation fighters and other applications.
The blades, which were tested in the second low-pressure turbine stage, represent the first successful application of CMCs in a rotating stage. GE has spent more than $1 billion in developing the silicon carbide ceramic fiber and ceramic resin material for engine applications which, so far, have been restricted to static parts such as shrouds, vanes and linings.

GE continues to evaluate data from the test, which was completed in November after 500 engine operating cycles, but says initial results prove the material is sufficiently robust to withstand the rotational stresses found in the turbine. The test also validated improvements made to strengthen the CMC after initial tests in 2010 revealed the original design did not meet the expected load requirements.

CMC low-pressure turbine blades, some with an experimental barrier coating, were tested in an F414. Credit: GE

http://aviationweek.com/defense/successful-rotating-cmc-part-demo-future-ge-fighter-engines-staged?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20150129_AW-19_838&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_3&YM_RID=CPEN1000000230026&YM_MID=1622

FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance their understanding of arms trade activities, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

By: bring_it_on - 29th January 2015 at 14:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

See this : http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2681.msg49639.html#msg49639

Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop Grumman participated in the ESAV program at AFRL. Boeing inherited the X-36 and with it hard data on tailless agility fighter with yaw vectoring. We also have to factor in that outfits like the Skunk works have 80% or more of their work classified so we really do not know what they work on off and on for current and future requirements. If the RCS and performance requirements absolutely necessitate that tails have to go away, then all three would have no trouble coming up with the designs. Of course such a setup would add to the risk and thats where DARPA comes in.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/254089915/Parametric-Geometry-Model-for-Design-Studies-of-Tailless-Supersonic-Aircraft