Penetrating Counter Air / Next Generation Air Dominance

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post03 Jan 2019, 01:32

weasel1962 wrote:I wonder whether sniper pods with IR sensors can make a difference for legacies vs 5G?

Radar is still the primary sensor in the A2A realm, the 4Gen pilot is a dead man flying long beforre he gets a sniff from his Sniper Pod.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1716
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post03 Jan 2019, 02:49

May be the case against an F-22 or F-35 but equally ineffective against a PLA or russki "5G"? That's not I heard from pilots using sniper.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1343
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post03 Jan 2019, 04:50

mixelflick wrote: .. when ground control told them to look! "You have 2 F-35's, 12 miles away at your 1:00, 25,000ft".


I finally figured out how to defeat an F-35 ... ADS-B transponder code. :mrgreen:
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1716
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post03 Jan 2019, 04:53

May have to switch it on first.
Offline

gideonic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 283
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post03 Jan 2019, 11:59

mixelflick wrote:I'm not so sure about the "bad" angles thing. Perhaps bigger than others, but I doubt they're "bad" per se. Bad (to me) implies a radar spike, thus jeopardizing its stealth. LM would have been crazy to spend all that money on low observable/stealth and then roll out.... an aircraft that could be detected from a certain angle? Not buying it...

Why not? If it would only be right below or above the aircraft at a near-90°angle for instance? With some, a lot smaller spikes from aligned edges in some unimportant directions.

That would only mean that the fighter is theoretically detectable at some obscure angles in a very tiny time window (let's not forget, that the aircraft moves). It still wouldn't be trackable or even really detectable. Especially when considering it also deals with signature management and is well aware of the radars trying to acquire (and at what angle).

Nothing will be directly above or below the aircraft (or facing the aligned-edges) for a meaningful amount of time. Especially as the pilot is well aware of the threats and "placing" the aircraft optimally.

Of course a mythical 100% undetectable "invisibility cloak" would be better. Real life engineering however is about tradeoffs and such miracle panacea's usually aren't possible. They also aren't necessary. Aforementioned fighters would still be "all-aspect stealth" in all operationally relevant meanings of the word.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3437
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post03 Jan 2019, 16:03

gideonic wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I'm not so sure about the "bad" angles thing. Perhaps bigger than others, but I doubt they're "bad" per se. Bad (to me) implies a radar spike, thus jeopardizing its stealth. LM would have been crazy to spend all that money on low observable/stealth and then roll out.... an aircraft that could be detected from a certain angle? Not buying it...

Why not? If it would only be right below or above the aircraft at a near-90°angle for instance? With some, a lot smaller spikes from aligned edges in some unimportant directions.

That would only mean that the fighter is theoretically detectable at some obscure angles in a very tiny time window (let's not forget, that the aircraft moves). It still wouldn't be trackable or even really detectable. Especially when considering it also deals with signature management and is well aware of the radars trying to acquire (and at what angle).

Nothing will be directly above or below the aircraft (or facing the aligned-edges) for a meaningful amount of time. Especially as the pilot is well aware of the threats and "placing" the aircraft optimally.

Of course a mythical 100% undetectable "invisibility cloak" would be better. Real life engineering however is about tradeoffs and such miracle panacea's usually aren't possible. They also aren't necessary. Aforementioned fighters would still be "all-aspect stealth" in all operationally relevant meanings of the word.


Yes, when you describe it like that it makes a lot more sense. Appreciate your input..
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 440
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post10 Jan 2019, 07:46

Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3437
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Jan 2019, 16:58

citanon wrote:New write up by Kris Osborn on PCA:

https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/ai ... xtPdROevw/


"Air Force Penetrating Counter Air program is looking at hypersonic weapons, unmanned flight, lasers..."

So much for "We don't want it to take 20 years to field something/do want to use off the shelf technologies etc", LOL. Precisely what I thought would happen. The USAF simply can't resist having the latest and greatest technologies built into their aircraft. Can't say that I'd do it any differently, but they could at least be honest with themselves/the vendors responding to their RFP's... Their history too, speaks to eschewing the simpler/cheaper alternative.

Consider the F-20 for example. Given its cost, reliability and low cost per flight hour... you'd think the USAF would have bought them by the squadron. But no dice. Yes, yes they would have been less capable vs. the fleet of multi-role F-16's we have today, but fact is - they had the option.

Be that as it may, I'm REALLY looking forward to see what LM, Boeing etc cook up. If they hurry, I might even be able to see it in service, before I make my way through the checkout line..
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1343
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post14 Jan 2019, 05:45

mixelflick wrote:"Air Force Penetrating Counter Air program is looking at hypersonic weapons, unmanned flight, lasers..."

So much for "We don't want it to take 20 years to field something/do want to use off the shelf technologies etc", LOL. Precisely what I thought would happen. The USAF simply can't resist having the latest and greatest technologies built into their aircraft.


You're presuming that's what it means though, mixel.

The early PCA conception was to build an airframe with maximized adaptability allowance within the structures from the outset for the aircraft to be able to have such capabilities added to it later once in service, i.e. PCA can not be a 'finished' solidified capability for a well-defined role.

The emphasis was originally to get the aircraft into service first, with initial capability levels mirroring F-35 (or even lower), but then to be able to evolve in a highly flexible way once in service, as the role of penetration and OCA developes during the following decades. So of course people would be currently thinking about the prerequisites, design allowances and trade-offs for fitting and adapting PCA to, "hypersonic weapons, unmanned flight, lasers". But it's an assumption to think those items will be baseline capabilities, at FOC.

F-35 puts the entire networked kill chain in one aircraft, then add mucho VLO, range and payload, and a capacity for continuous radical systems plus weapons and sensor adaptations = PCA
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3437
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post14 Jan 2019, 16:39

Maybe, but I just can't see the USAF rolling out its new fighter with a baseline capability.... equal (or God forbid, lesser) than the F-35. I don't mean the F-35 is any slouch - it isn't. But it'd be the F-35 "Can't turn, can't climb, can't run..." chorus all over again. Besides, when was the last time the USAF rolled out a new aircraft that wasn't a quantum leap over the replacement airframe?

*The F-15 and F-16 were a LOT more effective/deadly than the F-4 they replaced

*The F-14 was a LOT more effective/deadly than the F-4/F-8 it replaced

*The F-22 was a quantum leap over the F-15, which it was SUPPOSED to replace

*The F-35 is a quantum leap over the F-16, F-18, A-10 and AV/8B it's replacing

The one aircraft you can (arguably) cite that wasn't much more capable than the aircraft it replaced is the F-18, when it assumed the fleet defense role of the F-14. Much upgraded into the Super Hornet, that aircraft/radar/AIM-120D combination is just now approaching the capabilities of late model F-14D's, and only in some metrics (not all).

So I suppose it's been done, but getting there wasn't easy and to this day, some capabilities remain sub-par vs. the aircraft it replaced. The F-14D could play in the vertical, had superior range and was equally adept at fleet air defense, air to ground and tactical recon. It had much greater legs than the Super Hornet, got there faster and could stay on station longer.

Hopefully, the Navy's F/A-XX will run the table and correct that situation. It is hard to imagine PCA won't, either...
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1343
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post14 Jan 2019, 16:57

mixelflick wrote:Besides, when was the last time the USAF rolled out a new aircraft that wasn't a quantum leap over the replacement airframe?


Well that's that whole point. No one wants to wait 20 years to get another mega-jet, the whole intent of PCA was a rapid prototype and testing period to get the basic jet into service much faster, but also much less developed initially but with far greater designed-in adaptability, for later development, than the prior drawn-out 5th-gen jet development of a final envisaged capability. So there (ideally) won't be another 20 year long mega-jet development, because no one wants to do that this time.

Griffin etal., have been pushing the rapid prototype process pretty vigorously for a couple of years now to speed up development and fielding. They clearly want to short-circuit the process this time, so I presume they mean it.

And with respect to the F-35 criticisms, were ANY of those even valid? Did any of those whines make a difference? Except to annoy and piss everyone off? So why would it matter for PCA?
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3437
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post15 Jan 2019, 16:23

I understand your points, all very good ones.

On the whining thing, I think it does matter because at one point - the pig pile effect had the program in some very real jeopardy. It took appointing a new USAF program manager, who really took it to Lockheed to get the jet to where it is today. Remember, there's always the possibility it could have gone the other way like it did on the F-22. In fact, the F-22 is a perfect example of a next gen air dominance platform truncated buy. Granted, its performance was never in doubt but detractors (citing cost and lack of a mission) effectively made their arguments.

So according to what they say they want to do, PCA should be here in 10 or so years - not 20+? I have a hard time seeing that happen. So far as we know, the prototypes haven't even flown yet. That leaves the 10 years to test, refine etc and.... it goes IOC in 2030?

I hope so (I'm already standing in the checkout line), but I'm not very optimistic. Someone here said it's already behind schedule, and that's concerning. Until then, I'll be content to watch F-35's roll off the production line and keep a close eye on its performance. Recent videos of its 2019 demo do indeed indicate it's something special. Looks very Raptor like in its presentation..
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1343
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post28 Sep 2019, 05:40

What to Expect from Sixth-Gen Aircraft

9/16/2019

By Jon Harper

Image
Illustration: Scott Rekdal / Turbosquid

... A mockup of a Franco-German-Spanish stealth jet, part of the Future Combat Air System, or FCAS, was unveiled at the Paris Air Show in June. ... the U.S. Air Force and Navy are planning to develop their own “next-generation air dominance” capabilities.

Survivability against sophisticated enemy air defenses is expected to be a key requirement of sixth-generation systems that might have to square off against advanced adversaries such as China or Russia. “It has to be able to penetrate the worst potential defenses we could be up against,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said in a recent interview with National Defense. ...

... While fifth-generation platforms such as the F-35 and F-22 are low-observable against today’s X-band radars, the concept of stealth will likely be broader for future systems, said retired fighter pilot Gen. Hawk Carlisle, president and CEO of the National Defense Industrial Association and the former commander of Air Combat Command.

“It has got to try to be stealthier across more of the radar spectrum. It has to be stealthy in the IR spectrum. It has to be stealthy in the electromagnetic spectrum and how much it emits. It has to be stealthy in other ways,” he said. “When we talk about sixth-gen, it’s multispectral stealth across as many sensor capabilities as exist out there.

Another way to improve survivability is to suppress enemy air-defense systems with electronic warfare tools or shoot down their missiles and fighter jets, analysts have noted. “Navy leaders intend [the future fighter] FA-XX to be survivable in highly contested environments, which it might achieve through a combination of sensor countermeasures and self-defense weapons rather than aircraft shape and coatings alone,” said a report published last year by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments titled, “Regaining the High Ground at Sea: Transforming the U.S. Navy’s Carrier Air Wing for Great Power Competition.” ...

[The only difference I see here is better stealth and self-defence against missiles via small missiles, DIRCM, and offensive directed-energy]

... European missile-maker MBDA envisions platforms armed with interceptors.

Even if aircraft are stealthy, “we think that in the end game you will still have the threat of incoming missiles,” said Jean Dupont, the company’s head of media relations. “The only way to get rid of these very sophisticated threats will be to have … self-defense missiles onboard the aircraft.” An Air Force Research Laboratory video released last year titled, “Air Force 2030: Call to Action,” included a computer-generated F-X fighter shooting down an enemy aircraft with a laser. Carlisle said he anticipates lasers being integrated onto U.S. fighters once size, weight, power, thermal management and beam control challenges are solved. “We’re not there yet. It’s going to take a little bit of time,” he said. But “that capability is not too far in the future.

Other possibilities for directed energy weapons include high powered microwaves or an electromagnetic pulse-type of capability, he said. “If you can do something to disrupt the microelectronics in an adversary system, then you potentially can render it combat ineffective,” he explained. [If you see it first, i.e. if your stealth tech is the best] “We’ve demonstrated we can do it with a couple of different systems, so I think that’s another … capability that could come forward before too long.”

Another factor to consider is the need for speed. Carlisle noted that historically there has been a tradeoff between speed and stealth because quicker aircraft tend to have higher infrared signatures. However, cooling technologies could potentially enable next-gen systems to fly faster without sacrificing low-observability. Range and endurance are other key characteristics of any aircraft. Some observers have raised concerns about existing platforms’ combat radius. “One of the hits on fighters is you spend a lot of time going to the tanker because of range” limitations, Carlisle said.

The CSBA report said the Navy’s FA-XX is expected to emphasize range and speed. Future naval aircraft might need to provide offensive counter-air support from carriers that are located as far as 1,000 to 1,200 nautical miles away from enemy missile launchers, the authors said. [The right weapon should allow a strike radius of 1,800nm with MQ-25 support]

Another CSBA report commissioned by Congress and published earlier this year titled, “An Air Force for an Era of Great Power Competition,” said the service needs a penetrating counter-air platform that has greater range, endurance and payload capacity than contemporary fighters. Such a plane must be capable of conducting electronic warfare attacks to help suppress threats and enable other penetrating aircraft to survive and perform their missions.

A future system or family of systems “has to be able to have the legs to persist in that environment for long as we need it to persist,” Goldfein said. It must also have the ability to punish U.S. adversaries with its firepower, he noted. The service is pursuing a next-gen air-to-air weapon, as well as highly maneuverable hypersonic strike missiles. “You can make a missile pretty low-observable,” Carlisle said. “Now you look at a hypersonic missile that’s doing Mach 5, Mach 8, Mach 12, … even if the adversary knows it’s there as it passes through a weapons envelope so quickly, their ability to react and do something is very limited.”

Meanwhile, MBDA is planning to create a new series of smart missiles that could be networked with other systems. ... “We want to build synergies between those programs … in the weapon set,” Dupont said.

Nations must also decide if they want their next-generation fighters to be manned, unmanned or optionally manned. Unmanned systems can operate without the limitations of the human pilot, such as fatigue and being able to handle G forces, Carlisle noted. They also keep airmen out of harm’s way. However, officials still see value in having a human in the loop to make decisions.

“We all know that technically, of course, it’s feasible” for a next-generation fighter to be unmanned, said Florian Taitsch, head of media relations for Airbus Defense and Space. “But as far as I understand, the European nations … [prefer] having a man sitting there in the cockpit.” ...

[With a man in the loop your entire airforce won't jet jammed and made ineffective. Since when has having a human in a fighter led to ineffective capabilities or unsurvivability? Better to team with a drone that's agile and faster and can go deeper LOS while still human controlled. That's a long way at mutual altitude of 45k ft.]

... For certain scenarios and certain mission sets, an autonomous platform might be able to get the job done, she said during a panel at this year’s Navy League Sea-Air-Space Symposium. “But we’re seeing a lot more ability to leverage some of that … autonomy but still be in the loop with the manned system,” she added. That was one of the focus areas that the service looked at in its next-generation air dominance analysis of alternatives.

Sixth-generation fighters may be accompanied by robotic wingmen when they go into battle. Taitsch said the future combat air system is expected to include a manned fighter that will function as a mothership for drones called remote carriers.

Christie said manned/unmanned teaming and artificial intelligence will be a key component of next-generation air warfare. “One of the challenges is working out what the man does and what the machine does,” he noted.

The Pentagon is gung-ho on the concept, envisioning a family of systems cooperating to accomplish their mission. “The Air Force is talking a lot about loyal wingman … where there’s a manned platform and then there’s a group of unmanned capability that is either semi-autonomous, totally autonomous or totally controlled,” Carlisle said.

“You may have a man in the loop that’s maybe back in the rear so he’s less threatened, but he controls things in front of him,” he explained. “You may have that penetrating capability with man in the loop that goes forward … but he has the ability to control the rest of the systems from his place. Or you could have it all forward and unmanned” with a human overseeing the mission from much farther away.

The Air Force Research Lab is already testing a low-cost Valkyrie drone that could be paired with the fighter fleet. Future fighters might even be able to carry unmanned aerial vehicles that could be deployed from the mothership. “Our idea is to have something so compact, light [that it would be] completely compatible with the launchers,” said Sebastien Palaprat, an engineer with MBDA. The systems could operate in swarms and be networked with other weapons.

The Pentagon has experimented with this concept. In 2016, a swarm of more than 100 Perdix micro drones were deployed from three F/A-18 Super Hornets at China Lake, California. Data processing and sharing, enabled by automation and artificial intelligence, will be key to next-generation air dominance, officials and other observers say.

The FCAS will include an “air combat cloud” to enable fighter jets and other military forces to share “all the information available on the battlefield in real time with anybody,” Taitsch said. That would be a major leap in situational awareness capability, he noted. Anybody who claims that this level of information sharing is already happening has “seen too many films that are coming out of Hollywood,” he added. Christie said situational awareness will be a key feature of any future force. “The next generation will be all about … information dominance.”

Carlisle expects sensor fusion capability will be radically improved in next-gen systems. “We have to learn to DANCE,” he said, using an acronym which stands for data, algorithms, networks, cloud and edge computing. “You need the data. You need the algorithms, which is the AI or machine learning. You need the networks so that you can pass this around. You need the cloud for that data accessibility. And then you need computing at the [tactical] edge,” Carlisle explained. “I think that’s going to be where the sixth-gen is going to take us.”

Some Air Force and Navy officials are now shying away from using the term sixth-generation fighter, and have adopted the phrase next-generation air dominance, or NGAD, to describe their future systems, which will be supported by space, cyber and other capabilities. Goldfein said the Air Force could develop multiple types of sixth-gen aircraft. “I don’t know right now whether it’s a single platform [or] it’s a number of platforms,” he said. “I want to keep that wide open so we can really drive towards game changing technology as we go forward.

[Sounds like nothing soon then]

Next-gen aircraft might not look like today’s fighters, Carlisle said. “In people’s mind when they think fighter, they think F-22, F-35, F-18, F-15, F-16 — but it may not be a fighter in the traditional sense,” he said. “It may have different attributes. It may be a bigger airplane with a bigger internal storage and bigger payload.

The mockups unveiled by European powers, on the other hand, have a more traditional look. The Tempest “will probably still be an iconic fighter aircraft but with lots of related systems,” Chrisitie said. Countries are moving forward with their sixth-gen plans. By the end of next year, the Tempest project is expected to shift from a concept phase to an assessment phase. The U.K. Defence Ministry aims to have the aircraft operational by 2035.

[Oh come off it, 2035 is approaching mid-life for the 5th-gen development era. Tempest is clearly a variation on the 5th-gen airframe theme. :roll: When I look at Tempest all I can think is, why? What's next generation about it? What's its compelling reasons to be? Why would you spend hundreds of billions on that reinvention/duplication of the 5th-gen wheel?]

Later this year, the FCAS program will move from a joint concept phase to a demonstrator phase. The new fighter is expected to be ready for action by 2040. The U.S. Air Force and Navy are planning to field new platforms in the 2030s. Analyses of alternatives have already been conducted, and billions of dollars for next-generation air dominance capabilities are included in the future years defense program.

The Air Force is doing risk reduction and prototyping, which is expected to run through fiscal year 2024, according to budget documents. The Navy is planning to initiate a concept refinement phase in fiscal year 2020, according to Capt. Danny Hernandez, a spokesman for Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition James “Hondo” Geurts. The race is on to develop the most cutting edge systems. “We have a very strong industrial base that’s bringing lots of new ideas to us,” Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord told reporters. “We might have a very good competition there.”

— Additional reporting by Connie Lee

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... n-aircraft

They need to get practical with all those options, and reject the 'not-necessary' proposals. That 5-year proposition looks a lot more like 15 years (20 for Tempest). No change.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post28 Sep 2019, 11:17

element1loop wrote:What to Expect from Sixth-Gen Aircraft
It has to be able to penetrate the worst potential defenses we could be up against,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said in a recent interview with National Defense. ...

Odds are that they will not be capable of that through technological superiority. They would spend their money and serve the security of US better in other ways instead of searching for the new miracle weapon, the technological gap to countries like China is closing very fast.
“It has got to try to be stealthier across more of the radar spectrum. It has to be stealthy in the IR spectrum. It has to be stealthy in the electromagnetic spectrum and how much it emits. It has to be stealthy in other ways,” he said. “When we talk about sixth-gen, it’s multispectral stealth across as many sensor capabilities as exist out there.

US knows how to counter current VLO technology and knows that their opponents know too. Without denying its advantages, don't get me wrong.
“Navy leaders intend [the future fighter] FA-XX to be survivable in highly contested environments, which it might achieve through a combination of sensor countermeasures and self-defense weapons rather than aircraft shape and coatings alone,” said a report published last year by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments titled, “Regaining the High Ground at Sea: Transforming the U.S. Navy’s Carrier Air Wing for Great Power Competition.” ...

Navy leaders have said they expect to use missiles or call the USAF if they need to penetrate certain ADs. They are toning down the hype and seem to want something soon, even when it is not alien tech.
Even if aircraft are stealthy, “we think that in the end game you will still have the threat of incoming missiles,”

Makes sense, no doubt. It is fundamentally different to "trust" your stealth is going to work than actually having a solution in case it doesn't.
We’re not there yet. It’s going to take a little bit of time,” he said. But “that capability is not too far in the future.

It depends on what we call 6th gen in the end and when it will be implemented.
Another factor to consider is the need for speed. Carlisle noted that historically there has been a tradeoff between speed and stealth because quicker aircraft tend to have higher infrared signatures. However, cooling technologies could potentially enable next-gen systems to fly faster without sacrificing low-observability. Range and endurance are other key characteristics of any aircraft. Some observers have raised concerns about existing platforms’ combat radius. “One of the hits on fighters is you spend a lot of time going to the tanker because of range” limitations, Carlisle said.
The CSBA report said the Navy’s FA-XX is expected to emphasize range and speed

Speed, range are valuable. Your guys are saying it, not me.
The right weapon should allow a strike radius of 1,800nm with MQ-25 support

Such distances start making one think if navy brings anything to the fight. The increased tanking effort and reduced strike tempo is going to stress the carriers and put in question their ability to degrade the opponent's military.
“Now you look at a hypersonic missile that’s doing Mach 5, Mach 8, Mach 12, … even if the adversary knows it’s there as it passes through a weapons envelope so quickly, [b]their ability to react and do something is very limited.”

Sorry, but I cannot help noticing that it is "the enemy" that has such weapons as of now. Do such defence limitations apply to US or only to the enemy, when US fields hypersonic weapons?
[With a man in the loop your entire airforce won't jet jammed and made ineffective. Since when has having a human in a fighter led to ineffective capabilities or unsurvivability? Better to team with a drone that's agile and faster and can go deeper LOS while still human controlled. That's a long way at mutual altitude of 45k ft.]

Autonomous systems don't get jammed. But I agree it is a long way until such are capable to operate free of failure and the way is to have them learn from humans in the first place.
... For certain scenarios and certain mission sets, an autonomous platform might be able to get the job done, she said during a panel at this year’s Navy League Sea-Air-Space Symposium. “But we’re seeing a lot more ability to leverage some of that … autonomy but still be in the loop with the manned system,” she added. That was one of the focus areas that the service looked at in its next-generation air dominance analysis of alternatives.

Sixth-generation fighters may be accompanied by robotic wingmen when they go into battle. Taitsch said the future combat air system is expected to include a manned fighter that will function as a mothership for drones called remote carriers.
...
“You may have a man in the loop that’s maybe back in the rear so he’s less threatened, but he controls things in front of him,” he explained. “You may have that penetrating capability with man in the loop that goes forward … but he has the ability to control the rest of the systems from his place. Or you could have it all forward and unmanned” with a human overseeing the mission from much farther away.

IMHO this applies to the Su-57 - Okhotnik perfectly.
[Oh come off it, 2035 is approaching mid-life for the 5th-gen development era. Tempest is clearly a variation on the 5th-gen airframe theme. :roll: When I look at Tempest all I can think is, why? What's next generation about it? What's its compelling reasons to be? Why would you spend hundreds of billions on that reinvention/duplication of the 5th-gen wheel?]

Agree. If you come late to 5th gen you call your plane "6th gen" and hope nobody notices there is nothing revolutionary about it. Of course it will include improvements that are not present in current gen AC but from what we have seen, there is little an improved F-35 is not going to be capable of doing from what has been stated for Tempest. Let's wait and see whether there is something significant.
The race is on to develop the most cutting edge systems. “We have a very strong industrial base that’s bringing lots of new ideas to us,”
...
They need to get practical with all those options, and reject the 'not-necessary' proposals. That 5-year proposition looks a lot more like 15 years (20 for Tempest). No change.

Exactly, and it is going to be extremely expensive if people do not realize they cannot keep pursuing absolute military dominance over peer rivals, in their own territory (!). Contractors will certainly know how to make military salivate with their proposals (and rip them off in the process), but nothing real and usable will come out of it if the goals are not more down to earth.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1343
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post28 Sep 2019, 14:17

southerncross wrote: ... blah blah blah ... Russia Stronk!


The topic is "Penetrating Counter Air/Next Generation Air Dominance", it isn't about your pet spin topics and favourite bits of Russian junk.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 16 guests