USAF- no 6th generation fighter?

[Heathrow Harry]

According to this week's "Flight" Lt Gen James Holmes, Deputy C-o-S Strategic Plans says they can't afford a 20-30 year programme to develop a 6th generation fighter and that it would be unlikey to survive against advanced ground based air defence systems anyway

[MPN11]

Back to the days of Sandys, then ... missiles can do it all, no need for manned aircraft. That concept worked well :)

[Evalu8ter]

MPN,
Perhaps he's thinking about the threat posed by DEW equipped IADS, and that, having been burnt by the F-35's NRE & lengthy development cycle, there are better places to invest.....

[NutLoose]

I always thought that the technological superiority was the thing that kept them ahead of the game and everyone else was always playing catch up in capabilities.. surely to allow that gap to narrow is a short sighted folly. While quantity has a superiority all of its own, in the recent conflicts they have been involved in, technological superiority has been the key.

The F-35's downfall in my eyes is the one size fits all, they should never have gone down the route of trying to make a conventional fighter VTOL and vies versa, both will end up as a compromise and cost more.

[Flap62]

Perhaps we have come to the end of the line! Battleships didn't last forever, why should fighters?

[MSOCS]

I'd question what a 6th generation AC is, firstly. What does it bring? Unmanned stealth? I postulate there's growth potential to make F-35 unmanned in years to come, esp when the US have announced that F-35 will serve them for the next 50 years. Rip out the cockpit/canopy and replace the space with a satcom link to ground stations like the MQs have.

[Shackman]

Judging from the gestation period of the F-35 they should have started planning its replacement about 1945!

[JG54]

I thought the idea was more to leverage 'emerging technologies' rather than develop from scratch? I've no doubt that a 'sixth gen' aircraft will be fielded eventually, but will be arrived at by a more ersatz / COTS route than has been the (historic) norm.

Regards,

Frank

[Willard Whyte]

...says they can't afford a 20-30 year programme to develop a 6th generation fighter...

Probably depends who gets voted in to office November 8th...


I thought the idea was more to leverage 'emerging technologies' rather than develop from scratch?

Once Graphene/Carbon Nanotubes, hyperspectral sensors, and even transparent carbon fibre where necessary, have been developed 'thoroughly' there would certainly be scope for more advanced vehicles and equipment. Most aircraft, and indeed any field of endeavour, development has been allowed by materials technology. Once the transonic region had been conquered aerodynamics hadn't much left to reveal, for example, just the wherewithal to build stuff capable of matching the theory.

[Turbine D]

Meh,
The good Lt.General will soon be gone, a new General will be in and we will be back on track to the next fighter jet iteration. The engines are already being developed. Hopefully the rest of the kit won't take 20+ years to evolve.

[Lonewolf_50]

XB-47. Think about it. It's just a toe in the duck pond, but that's the future.


I have held the opinion since about 2005 that the F-35 is the last manned fighter/strike aircraft we'll ever build. (Not sure if F-22 will get a revamp, despite various rumors circulating).


We'll see what the next ten years brings, but pushing at the corners of the performance envelope finds some practical engineering limitations.

[Finningley Boy]

Needs must when the Devil drives. There'll be a return to the drawing board when push comes to shove and minds are concentrated. At the moment, the technological gap remains but the cost of research and development, especially given the amount of time needed. They'd be starting on a design to be flown operationally in a theatre none of us can envisage and by people not even conceived yet. Most of us would not live to see it, but if the circumstances so prevail, there may well be a sudden rush to design an aircraft with a particular niche but much demanded capability, but it won't be a 6th Generation fighter so much as a future version of a combat aircraft from the past, designed to fulfill that specific role.

FB:)

[Heathrow Harry]

he seemed to be suggesting a "platform" with various plug & play addons to shorten both the time issues and the development risk - but almost by definition that's very different from any modern fighter currently flying

[Turbine D]

HH & FB,

I would tend to agree with you. Here are three articles that touch on the subject.

The first one is a presentation the Frank Kendell gave regarding the so called "sixth generation fighter". He is the DoD procurement chief and I think some of what he says really isn't etched in stone at this point, but he has to keep the defense industry intact and interested in the future. The DARPA programs are on going, a complete multi-cycle jet engine has become a reality and partially tested at this point:
Kendall Unveils 6th Gen Fighter Strategy (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/02/01/6th-gen-fighter-strategy/22597515/)

The next two articles are summaries of presentations given by Lt. General James Holmes. Basically, the Air Superiority 2030 ECC Team under him really doesn't know the roadmap to the future yet, most likely it will be at least 2018 before things start to gel:
Sixth-gen fighter likely won?t be common across U.S. services, Air Force general says (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/02/12/sixth-gen-fighter-likely-wont-common-across-us-services-air-force-general-says/80308582/)
Beyond the Fighter Jet: The Air Force of 2030 (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/08/beyond-fighter-jet-air-force-2030/82767356/)

[PersonFromPorlock]

The good Lt.General will soon be gone, a new General will be in and we will be back on track to the next fighter jet iteration. The engines are already being developed. Hopefully the rest of the kit won't take 20+ years to evolve. Yep. USAF doesn't have policies, it has generals; change the general, change the policy.

[Heathrow Harry]

Thansk Turbine - those Llinks add some much needed flesh to the Flight article..............

[Finningley Boy]

Many thanks Turbine, I've been away so haven't read the links yet but I'm just about to!

FB:)

[Turbine D]

HH & FB,
You are more than welcome!
There is another venue in which General Holmes spoke, the sub-committee of the Senate Armed Services Committee which deals with the USAF. I had not read the presentation until now, but after reading it, I thought I would pass it on, although no real mention of Gen Six. However, it does give the idea of the reach of and resources in equipment at USAF disposal as well as the obvious plea for additional funding to keep the ball rolling. Hope you find it an interesting read.

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Costello_Holmes_Raymond_Bunch_03-08-16.pdf

[Heathrow Harry]

I guess the question comes "how long do you pay the guys to keep cranking out studies" when you have no money to actually commision a new aiirframe???

[Finningley Boy]

Whatever,

it seems that somewhere, there'll be some white coated tousle haired Gentlemen, with their specs not on quite right, beavering away to produce some futuristic designs to defend the Heavens from hostile airborne objects, whatever they may turn out to be. And possibly one day those machines will be the subject of the airshow commentators' dulcet tones.:ok:

FB:)

[Lonewolf_50]

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Costello_Holmes_Raymond_Bunch_03-08-16.pdf Despite being laced with jargon, this was an interesting read and many thanks for the link. It's recent enough to be of better than average interest.