Next generation fighter, please : Gen Hostage.

[Lowe Flieger]

It's thought-provoking that Gen Mike Hostage, commander of US Air Combat Command, believes that the US needs to be looking for '6th generation' fighter capabilities around 2030. F35, the current great hope, will barely have shed it's baby teeth by then, and the General is already calling for the next contender to step up to the plate.

I wonder where the funding is going to come from, and how soon? Less than 20 years would be a relative sprint in terms of complex military systems development and delivery, so they have to define 6th gen capability requirements and get their hands on funding pretty soon if this is to stand any chance of becoming reality in that time frame. And no, he doesn't know what attributes will define '6th generation'. They are thinking about it, but not yet decided. It will be 'game-changing' though, so it will be pushing the technical boundaries once more. Following the horror programme that is F35, you would have thought they might shy away from another technology leap or leaps. Of course, the US government may not be so ambitious, so the General may not get his wish, but they are worried about their capabilities for their new focus on the Pacific region, so who knows?

LF

[ORAC]

Lockheed Martin (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-reveals-bold-technology-plans-with-6th-gen-fighter-concept-366533/)

Boeing (http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/concept-plane-eye-candy-boeings-fa-xx/)

USN RFI (http://www.scribd.com/doc/89726577/Navy-FA-XX-RFI-1)

[MSOCS]

I would offer the suggestion that the '6th Generation' concept, though currently not defined [publicy] in requirements terms, is an F-22 replacement and would see improved levels of speed and kinematics over that platform - I'd wager unmanned too but that's purely my own opinion.

Whatever it turns out to be, I'm sure the biggest problem the USA will have will be keeping the Programme secrets from Chinese hackers so they don't copy it and get it on the street 10 years before they do (a cheaper, less-capable version of course :ok:); the LM version in the link even looks like J-20.

I'd also bet that it is a US-only product from the outset with options for an export version later.

F-15 ---> F-22A ---> 6th Gen

F-16 ---> F-35A ---> 7th Gen?

[500N]

Will Ramjet make it in or is that going to be for
vary fast delivery of missiles only ?

And of course will the technology be ready by
the development stage ?

[kbrockman]

http://www.galaxyphoto.com/rockets/viper_hoot.jpg
As you can see ,pilots are included.

[Lowe Flieger]

Thanks kb,

I guess that makes it optionally manned?

Now if only the good General had explained it as concisely as you have, all would have been clear.

LF

[Biggus]

I suppose it all depends on what sort of conflicts you expect to participate in by 2035. The Gen is looking at a high tech conflict, with a capable opponent, and so wants 6th generation to win. 6th generation will come at a high price ($), and by say 9th generation even the USA will only be able to afford a fleet of 12 a/c, you end up pricing yourself out of the game!


On the other side of the coin I saw something on pprune a while ago where an ex commander of an F-22 squadron said that you don't need all your tactical aircraft to be stealthy. That you need some low cost, simple, airframes which you can then afford to buy in bulk for asymmetric conflicts such as Afghanistan (which would be of more use, and most cost effective, in Afghanistan today, a Skyraider/A4/A10 or an F-35?.

Who is right, one, the other, or both? Which approach is most sensible, or affordable, and what are the consequences if you make the wrong choice?

[Herod]

Is he a general hostage, as opposed to a particular one, and can we see Major Disaster following behind?

[dead_pan]

you don't need all your tactical aircraft to be stealthy

Given advances in detection technology, maybe by then stealth will have been consigned to the history books?

[Lowe Flieger]

Biggus,

I think the paper you are thinking of is by Lt Col Christopher J. Niemi, USAF, who argued for more F22's backed up by numerous latest iteration F16's and F18's for more straightforward tasks.

I tend to agree that a small fleet of high-end fighters only could result in a mismatch of tasks and capabilities. Better a bigger number of low-end and smaller number of high-end assets in my opinion. But we can't afford both, so a small number of expensive high-end jets it is, tasked with everything from COIN to A2AD penetration and A2A with advanced opponents. Given that fashions tend to be cyclical if you wait long enough, I wouldn't be surprised if, say, 25 years from now, someone will have the innovative idea of having a low cost asset for low cost targets, and produce something cheap and cheerful (well relatively), for the task. But that does not seem to be in vogue at present, unless you classify UCAV's as low cost, which I am not sure they are.

LF

[West Coast]

While I would tend to agree with the LtCol, call the latest teen series fighters by their callsign, Bulletcatcher.

[sisemen]

Is the good general lobbying for a role with the manufacturers of the aircraft? If so it could probably be a hostage to fortune.


orl right - I'm orf

[Whenurhappy]

That will be General Gilmary Michael Hostage III then? Former Group Commander at PSAB, Saudi Arabia in 2001-2002. Gosh how we laughed at his name ( behind his back, of course). A very good operator, but never quite forgave 'you Brits' for mooning him from the back of a flight line ute on the long dual carriage way from the housing complex to the Ops site at PSAB. Had a bit of a meltdown in my office, to be precise. But he was only a Brigadier, then.

Chris Niemi's paper argued that you could use 5 th generation platforms to open up the corridor and use 'legacy' platforms for the kinetic elements. He also suggested the use of LO UCAVs in the same role. I discussed this with Chris over several biers in on the slopes in Austria, whilst he was on his fellowship at the Marshall Center. Tough assignment. Like mine!

[sisemen]

more F22's backed up by numerous latest iteration F16's and F18's for more straightforward tasks.

That theory seems to be a re-hash of the doctrine proposed by the RAF in the late 50s early 60s.

Then, the cheap asset was the Folland Gnat which would have been in support of the high-end stuff (as it was then). The Whitehall mandarins didn't follow through though but they did buy squillions of Gnats for advanced training.