Need for European 6th Generation Combat Aircraft 2025

[keesje]

In my opinion the JSF project sofar and the development of 5th generation stealth platforms in Russia, India, Japan, Korea, China makes clear Europe has become dependent, a partner, lacking behind.

A result of the enormous cost cutting in the European nations during the last 20 years (end cold war), cash draining Eurofighter and a blind reliance on the JSF program and how the US thinks about it.

There is a significant industry in Europe (BAE, EADS, Saab, Dassault) and stealth technology has been developed for the different UAV programs.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/6thgenfighter_zps9bd3392a.jpg

I think a commitment for a 6th Generation must be made to prevent us becoming overly dependent on foreign technology and being outclassed in this area.

Or should we just sit back & see?

http://www.crossed-flag-pins.com/genimg/flaggen/European-Union-240-animated-flag-gifs.gif

[Biggus]

If you're serious about a new ?th generation aircraft in service by 2025, then work should have started on the project at least 5, may 13, years ago.......

More like 2035!!!

[Lonewolf_50]

keesje:

You can't afford it, at the rate the Euro Governments are reducing defense budgets.

Sorry, but what makes airplanes fly is money. :E

[keesje]

During last decade europe developped the Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, A400M, MRTT.

Should it all stop because we have no money?

Deep down I feel we are still one of the richest regions in the world with an 100 yr fighter innovation history and there will be demand.

The Brits went quiet after the BAE Replica/ JSF

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth4f.files/BAE_replica_1.jpg

I can see the french going on their own, if everyone sits on their hands..

[muppetofthenorth]

The Typhoon was developed in the last 10 years?

What about the twenty years of development before that?

[dead_pan]

Looks pretty similar to something else of 1980s vintage:

http://www.modelbuffs.com/mpm/uploadspa/MiG-FIREFOX-Revised-Solo-1.jpg

We'll all be buying Chinese by 2025.

[keesje]

The Typhoon was developed in the last 10 years?

I swear that I wrote decades, must have been a computer malfunction ;)

On Eurofighter multi Billion political/industrial pushed Tranche3 is all we seem to be able to come up with..

[tucumseh]

The Typhoon was developed in the last 10 years?

What about the twenty years of development before that?

I'd say this is about right. When I took up a new post in August 1985, the handover notes from my predecessor included an old "EFA" task.

[AR1]

ACA - IIRC

[kbrockman]

could we maybe agree on 1 thing?
First thing that should have to be agreed upon is that we have to stop
using this whole x-th generation nomenclatura.

No point in using a marketing tool made up by one supplier to be able to separate themselves and their products and thereby creating the idea that somehow they have something unique to offer that nobody else has, a must have toy.
First thing that will happen if we don't is that they will claim to have skipped the 6th generation and went with a seventh generation instead ,probably claiming it has a timetravel device, which later on will prove to be nothing more than a hypercomlex clock that skips every 5th hour because it is so complex and expensive that they cannot get the software running correctly to make it do what it is supposed to do in the first place.

[sisemen]

I remember a briefing by British WasteofSpace in 1984 where the Typhoon (obviously it wasn't called that then) was being discussed. So it had been in gestation for some considerable time before that.

[ExRAFRadar]

Screw em all. Lets develop the 16th Generation Jet;)

[CoffmanStarter]

Here you go ExRAFRadar ...

16th Gen Fighter

http://www.joehallock.com/wp-images/2006/10/101006_01.jpg

16th Gen Transport

http://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tb2j2.jpg


Sorted :ok:

[keesje]

I remember seeing an Eurofighter like aircraft when I was kid on le Bourget in the early eighties..

I guess 6th generation means significant better then the now 5th gen aircraft. Wasn't the 5th gen F22 around 20 yrs ago.. but kbrockman is right we should talk about capabilities.

I don't recall the cloggies being involved in Eurofighter, either as a developer or a buyer.

Re "we" What option do WE have for an affordable stealth fighter these days. So w'll shop in the US again. Difficult choice if you have no options. Avoiding the risk poms "improving" perfectly ok platforms into multi billion disasters is avoided too ;)

[peter we]

The Brits went quiet after the BAE Replica/ JSF

Not exactly, the work was developed into the F-35.

[Willard Whyte]

I remember a briefing by British WasteofSpace in 1984 where the Typhoon (obviously it wasn't called that then) was being discussed. So it had been in gestation for some considerable time before that.

I remember seeing the EAP prototype flying in 1986.

[ExRAFRadar]

FAB CoffmanStarter

[Heathrow Harry]

"Should it all stop because we have no money? "

In my humble experience that's EXACTLY when most things stop..............

[orca]

I suppose the question - for a Friday with a glass of wine - is whether we actually need a manned sub orbital system at all - let alone 6 generations of the blighters.

[walter kennedy]

First define what it is you are intending to defend - nation states are almost a thing of the past - if you have a true nation state with its own economy, you can build what you like - to rebuild a nation state does not require fast jets, just the will and blood and guts.
To you knights of the air I ask, what use have fast jets been in defending England in the last few decades? Take a look around, think about it.

[EAP86]

ditto:)

...and preceding it was the ACA (advanced combat aircraft). EAP developed out of ACA as the more affordable demonstrator program. P110 preceded the ACA but not many will remember that.

[Neptunus Rex]

orca
is whether we actually need a manned sub orbital system at allIt has been tried before, in 1957, as dictated by the then Minister of Defence, Duncan Sandys. Disaster!

We shall always need manned fighters (as well as Long Range Maritime Patrol.)

[keesje]

Well probably can buy half the aircraft unmanned..

http://thetruthisnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Maryland-A-Government-of-by-and-for-Lockheed-Martin.jpg

[JSFfan]

but what are the RAF doing post 2030?
where is the EU designed and built replacement?
RAF - Typhoon FGR4 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhooneurofighter.cfm)
Tranche 1 aircraft fleet due to retire over the period 2015-18, this will leave 107 Typhoon aircraft in RAF service until 2030.

[keesje]

JSFfan, the JSF is obviously the big project this decade. Which means European fighter building capabilities, after devlopping the Rafale, Eurofighter and Grippen during the eighties/ nineties are in for a big pause. Those guys are 20-30 yrs older now.. I see a continuity risk..

Based on the conflicts of the previous 20 years, I see an upcoming requirement for a Tornado sized strike aircraft, with lots of range/ endurance, a two person cockpit etc. A generation beyond the Rafale, SuperHornet and Su34.

[Lonewolf_50]

Based on the conflicts of the previous 20 years, I see an upcoming
requirement for a Tornado sized strike aircraft, with lots of range/ endurance,
a two person cockpit etc. A generation beyond the Rafale, SuperHornet and Su34
Nope. That isn't what is in store in the future. You do get partial credit for this, however ...
with lots of range/ endurance,
Range and endurance are perrenial requirements targets.
"Lots of" tells us nothing.

keesje, your level of understanding is overwhelmed by your word count.

[keesje]

That isn't what is in store in the future.

Lonewolf_50, incorrect. The French thought so to & changed their mind. Now most Rafales are two seaters.

Range and endurance are perrenial requirements targets.

Better check. Range and endurance will certainly be on the requirements list. Recent Rafale flights over Libya and Mali took typically over 6 hours, putting pressure on tanker assets. And Rafales have better range then e.g. Eurofighters.

[keesje]

Apparently the Navy is willing to give up performance for additional range.

US Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-may-add-conformal-fuel-tanks-to-fa-18ef-super-hornet-fleet-383701/)

F18 Super Hornets are already unfamous for their speed / agility versus other fighters.

It seems just like the Rafale its turning into a Bomber more then a Fighter.

[Lonewolf_50]

keesje, Rafael is not quite the FUTURE, given that this thread starts with Sixth Gen fighter as some sort of vision.

Adding a back seater to Rafael ... that's funny, we got rid of the ballast officer in our latest fighters: F-22 and F-35. These are the planes that are supposed to meet our future requirements for tactical aircraft.
Range and endurance are perrenial requirements targets . Better check. Range and endurance will certainly be on the requirements list. Recent Rafale flights over Libya and Mali took typically over 6 hours, putting pressure on tanker assets. And Rafales have better range then e.g. Eurofighters.
I see we have a vocabulary problem. Look up the term "perrenial" and you will see that in the sentence where I used it, I was pointing out that range and endurance are always goals in a requirement. English not being your first language, I suppose I should have used a simpler term.

Said more simply: you always want more range and more endurance, but to hit that design performance goal, what do you sacrifice?

This is an ETERNAL problem to solve in aircraft design. It is also why people developed drop tanks ;) and air to air refueling. ;)

[Archimedes]

Lonewolf_50, incorrect. The French thought so to & changed their mind. Now most Rafales are two seaters.


According to the French MoD Website, there were, in 2011, 69 Rafale C, 48 Rafale M (both 'monoplace') and 63 Rafale B ('biplace')

(Le Rafale (http://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/equipement/aeronautique/le-rafale/(language)/fre-FR#SearchText=Rafale B#xtcr=1))

The French Navy decided to procure the Rafale N (2 seats) after Kosovo. They then reversed that decision (see Jane's Defence Weekly, 24 Sep 2004)

As for the Air Force:

Defence Ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau announced on 30 September that the air force would reduce its requirement for Rafale Bs from 134 to 84 (Jane's Defence Weekly, 8 Oct 2004)

Rafale production in 2011 and 2012 was 11 airframes (JDW, 14 Mar 2013), so even if every one of them were 'biplace' and none of the 2011 output included in the figures (neither of which applies), you'd still have a preponderance of single-seaters in the French armed forces.

[Lonewolf_50]

keesje, thanks for that link. Intriguing permutation of F-18 series. A few points. (Aboulafia is a fairly savvy aerospace industry observer/analyst).

1. (edited for brevity)
If the USN were to add CFTs to the F/A-18E/F, it might also have to upgrade the aircraft's twin General Electric (GE) F414-GE-400 afterburning turbofans which produce 22,000lbs (98 kN) thrust each. (EPE) variant of the F414 could produce 26,400lbs (120 kN) thrust. (Maybe) Can GE do it?

2. Maybe not. (Edited for brevity)
Given the US government's current financial situation, the USN may not be able to pay for a programme to add CFTs to the Super Hornet.

Money could potentially be siphoned from the USN's F-35 (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Lockheed%20Martin%20F-35.html) accounts.

"For some, the F-35 is as much a potential bill-payer as it is an acquisitions programme."
With things like JDAM and stand off munitions growing in use, and potential to finally begin no kidding BVR engagements, adding fuel isn't a bad idea. Stretches your area of action when you are the Jont Force Commander. I agree, though, that adding more weight to F-18 would cry for the upgraded engine.

As to "versus other fighters," Hornet drivers have to use their wits to deal with such challenges.

You may recall that naval aviators in WW II had an aircraft, F4F, that didn't match up all that well versus the Zero. Someon developed a tactical means to neutralize the Zero's maneuverability advantage: Thach Weave.

I wonder how soon we'll see such engagements again ...

[TURIN]

CoffmanStarter

I think you'll find that TB1 was/is/will be a lightly armed Hypersonic Reconnaissance Aircraft. :ok:

[Martin the Martian]

Yes indeed. I think this is what you may be thinking of.:ok:

http://www.spectrum-headquarters.com/decked_angels.jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=Qr2BB39gy5h2QM&tbnid=0qfp_KmlKKC7XM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spectrum-headquarters.com%2Famber_room_upper_deck.htm&ei=zDhLUe3CEsKl0AW53oG4CQ&bvm=bv.44158598,d.ZWU&psig=AFQjCNGQINvubDxq0kV_JCGbhvoq-uH_Kg&ust=1363970261982104)

[4Greens]

No more aircraft needed. Missiles and UAV's will do it all.

[Archimedes]

Thank you, Mr Sandys. What was Churchill like as a father-in-law, BTW?;)

[Heathrow Harry]

very helpful in getting me a job and getting promotion

Duncan

[TEEEJ]

Keesje wrote,

I remember seeing an Eurofighter like aircraft when I was kid on le Bourget in the early eighties.

That would have been the mock-up of the Agile Combat Aircraft.

british aerospace | 1983 | 0995 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1983/1983%20-%200995.html)

eurofighter @ starstreak.net • Index page (http://typhoon.starstreak.net/history.html)

[Literground]

Excuse my rapidly ageing memory, but don't I remember one former 'airship' expounding quite firmly while speaking at that club in Piccadilly, that 'the future of air power is unmanned strike with piloted interception?.

I can't say I agreed at all - I feel the next two or so generations of military pilots may well be the last to suit up and physically 'soar where never lark or even eagle flew'. I foresee, lamentably, a future of 'gamers' rather than flyers, perhaps it isn't a bad thing. And after all the purpose of all of us who served was never more than the defence of the realm, and if it can be done better another way then let it pass.

But if we are going to go unmanned then why bother physically fighting at all, bugger the carriers and the never-quite-there F35, and let us draw up a whacking all-inclusive treaty and appoint referee's and sim the whole bloody shooting match, televise it and raffle a few seats in H.M's simulated airforce. Bingo - no messing with procurement and training, and do let us change from wearing wings to a nice new badge - a comfy chair in gold, perhaps, or a bold silvern usb port.

In the 'Friday night with a good glass of wine' spirit, of course.

[keesje]

Former USN chief suggests DOD should cancel F-35A in favour of C-model

Former USN chief suggests DOD should cancel F-35A in favour of C-model (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/former-usn-chief-suggests-dod-should-cancel-f-35a-in-favour-of-c-model-383969/)

Agree or pay?

[Mk 1]

Well, whaddaya know? A service chief pushing the case for his own service... IIRC, the C has a better range (good), but inferior roll rates and g loadings. if the Air Farce had wanted these lesser requirements they would have asked for them. Why cancel the one part of the program that seems to be more on track than the other two?

Pffft. I'll bet there are a dozen army generals saying cancel the future subs program so we can afford another couple of mechanised divisions, a few navy bods wearing scambled egg on the brim wanting the Air farce to cancel all fast jets so they can have a superfleet, and of course quite a few blue shirt wearers who believe the other two services should be scrapped to afford a larger fleet of B2's etc.

[keesje]

Hopefully the European airforces will get the F35A, maybe not.

Depends on how the US government feels.

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement#Planned_purchases)

[henra]

Or we buy T-50 derivatives from India. :E

[keesje]

BigGreenGilbert; those dreamers from Lockheed Martin did it for me.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/global-sustainment/product-support/2011HOC-Presentations/Wed_1530-Maritime_Aircraft.pdf

Still hoping for a big RAF ASW flying fortress with a 14 guys crew hunting for evil subs above the Atlantic ? Catch on, the word is multi-mission ;)

[Heathrow Harry]

BAe have already submitted a £1bn proposal for a study leading to a task force leading to a committee to develope that idea

[keesje]

Keesje. No they didn't.

BigGreenGilbert, yes they did.

multi-mission is a lot different than trying to combine mutually exclusive roles into a single aircraft.

Multi mission within the possible. Read the LM presentation, fleets of dedicated platforms for roles like these are out the door.

About an MPA refuelling a helicopter that would be within the mutually inclusive roles of Search & Rescue.

Add the widely used buddy buddy refueling operations and it seems you're hunting ghosts here :ugh::ugh:

Anyway this is not about MPA's is it? I wonder how you dragged me into this..

Back on topic, the Eurofighter was specified as multirole, but much had to be added to make the interceptor into an acceptable strike aircraft (poor stealth, range, ASM's capabilities)..
Eurofighter Typhoon - Demon or Lemon? (http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typhoon.html)

[Roland Pulfrew]

Keesje

The requirement for Typhoon, at least in the RAF, was always for it to replace the F3 in the air defence role first, with development for it to become a ground attack ac later. The fact that the Jaguar was taken from service first was down to cost cutting in the UK. When the F15As and F16As entered service they too were single role aircraft. GA weapons were added slowly over time. But well done for finding an article with its basis in 2000 and last updated (according to the copyright) in 2010. Nothing has moved on since then has it?

And well off topic how many countries have, or are buying an MMA that can also tank helicopters? I'm thinking "zero". :rolleyes:

[keesje]

The article linked says:

The genesis of the RAF Typhoon lay in the early seventies AST.396 requirement for a STOVL light ground attack fighter intended to replace the Jaguar and Harrier. This requirement was abandoned in favour of the AST.403 specification for a multirole fighter with similar capabilities to the emerging US F-16 and F/A-18.

Later on I heard RAF/Luftwaffe pilots were absolutely fed up with F15/F16/F18s flying circles around them in Air to Air exercises, the Mig29 looked pretty mean, so thrust and agility were essential in the trade-offs.

but I wasn't there

Back off topic, how many airforces bought MPA that had a gun? I even remember an MPA with AAM's but that was very specific..
An MPA like LM offers on the C130 makes clear requirements are moving. Btw On the last slide they mention the tanker option. :uhoh:

[Roland Pulfrew]

Nice quote from ages ago. Have you spoken to any current Typhoon pilots? I work with one right now. He raves about his jet and its capability and its ability against anything else in service at present.

Off topic - sorry :O Last MPA with a gun? I'm guessing the Shackleton, there just isn't a requirement for one. And perhaps you ought to look a little more carefully at your LM presentation. No mention of ASW at all. And one aircraft CANNOT do all of those roles at the same time. They can do each role singly, hence C130J, AC130J, KC130J, etc, etc Perhaps requirements aren't changing quite as quickly as you like to imagine.

[keesje]

And one aircraft CANNOT do all of those roles at the same time.

I wonder who ever stated / thought that (with refs pls) ;)

And well off topic how many countries have, or are buying an MMA that can also tank helicopters? I'm thinking "zero".

Incorrect. Who knows, maybe some requirements change a bit faster then some think.

Helicopter-refueling search and rescue plane delivered to D-M | KVOA.com | Tucson, Arizona (http://www.kvoa.com/news/helicopter-refueling-search-and-rescue-plane-delivered-to-d-m/#_)

[Roland Pulfrew]

Oh keesje, keesje. Will you ever learn to read and understand? :ugh:

Lockheed Martin for one. They do not have 1 version of the C130 that can do all of the tasks you advocate. They have a number of different variants that can do a single role, or maybe 2 roles. So yes you have a SAR platform that can tank; you have tankers that can transport; you have ISTAR C130s but they don't carry freight or do gunship. There are gunships that might be able to carry a little bit of freight (ever been on the back of an AC130? Not much spare space is there??). All single role with maybe a secondary capability.

Well done for finding an article talking about a SAR Tanker aircraft - they have been around for years by the way - but it ISN'T a multi mission platform, unless your definition of multi is 2. :=

The HC130J is actually a JPR platform with a crew of 5: This taken from the USAF website (http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=18776):
Its mission is to rapidly deploy to execute combatant commander directed recovery operations to austere airfields and denied territory for expeditionary, all weather personnel recovery operations to include airdrop, airland, helicopter air-to-air refueling, and forward area ground refueling missions.
General Characteristics
Primary function: Fixed-wing Personnel Recovery platform

Its a helicopter tanker. No-one is denying that there is a capability to refuel helicopters, its been around for years; nor that there might be a requirement for a SAR aircraft to act as a helicopter tanker. But they are dedicated tanker aircraft not true multi-mission (maritime patrol) aircraft. No-one is buying a multi-mission maritime patrol aircraft that can tank as well; so I ask again who has put out a requirement for such an aircraft let alone who is buying such a platform? Over to you.

Apologies to all of our readers, this should be in one of the endless MPA topics not in here. Now back on topic, when was the last time you spoke to a current Typhoon pilot?

[WhiteOvies]

Interesting question RP. Are they all gagging to get an F-35 slot or are they waiting for the AESA and other gucci toys to be put onto Typhoon?

I noticed in the press release on the first RAF non-test Pilot that Sqn Ldr Buchler was ex Jag and Typhoon, I wonder what his view on a 6th Gen platform would be?

Is anyone even thinking that '6th Gen' includes a cockpit instead of a ground station?

[keesje]

All single role with maybe a secondary capability.

The goal posts seem to be moving := & suggesting the LM multi mission presentation supports your view seems a bit rich :) But lets not discuss here.

Now back on topic, when was the last time you spoke to a current Typhoon pilot?

I think never, but also have yet to speak to a fighter pilot who wasn't telling himself they are better then the others.

[keesje]

Boeing is unveiling an updated version of its F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter concept at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space Exposition in Washington DC this week.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=50067

Boeing unveils updated F/A-XX sixth-gen fighter concept (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-unveils-updated-fa-xx-sixth-gen-fighter-concept-384291/)

[Lonewolf_50]

I note from the picture provided that rear visibility has already been written off.

Shall the outrage begin now, or after the RFP? :E

[Captain Radar....]

Come on Stuffers Keesje needs a wingman.

Fantasy is better in stereo.

[henra]

Boeing unveils updated F/A-XX sixth-gen fighter concept (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-unveils-updated-fa-xx-sixth-gen-fighter-concept-384291/)

One really wonders what will make this even less conventional design cheaper and less troublesome than that of the aerodynamically rather conservative F-35 (and F-22 for that matter) ?

Do they really expect that someone will dare an even more expensive, risky and complex adventure than F-35?
Really?

[t43562]

Perhaps if you're too conservative you will end up at the same destination - same set of problems - just via a different route? e.g. would the X-32's unconventional construction have made it cheaper to produce? If yes then it would have had a different set of problems than the F-35 has had but possibly ones that it was easier to find the money to fix.

Could the next fundamental revolution be about designs that are more easily made rather then entirely about features?

[keesje]

The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is studying next-generation fighter concepts under a new air dominance initiative that should yield results for next year's budget cycle.

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

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/04/LMT%20Fighter%20560.jpg

[Willard Whyte]

Similar to:

http://avia-museum.narod.ru/usa/northrop_f-23_8.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

Nice pictures.

What makes you think there will be another manned fighter after 5th Gen?