Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Oh, I forgot to mention sensors! I definitely agree that 360 AESA will be a need, and very easy with tech two decades hence. Perhaps other types of senors will be used? A visual ID system perhaps? Like the under-nose camera on the F-14, but just with some software that can find fighters in clear weather at 50nmi or so. Even a Raptor isn't visually stealth.

*begin anti-robot rant* Salute

And commenting on all the UAV happy notions, let me remind those here that The Islamic Republic of Iran quite easily hacked into one of our better drone's GPS systems and replaced it with their own signal, leaving the automous drone thinking it was over home base. You don't want that happening to a state-of-the-art fighter. And while they may have had help, the Iranians ain't exactly the best hackers in the world, so anybody could pull a stunt like that off, provided they can find the airplane.

So, unless the UCAV (or is it UAS now?) in question is completely autonomous, we'd be making the same mistake we did before Vietnam- relying on technology too much. On top of all that, it is politically and perhaps even technically impossible to build a fully-robot warplane, even twenty years from now.
*end anti-robot rant* Salute

When it comes to fiction informing the future, I think there is scarsely any good material to go from on this paticular subject- future fighters in fiction are either extremely unrealistic (like Space: Above and Beyond which shows apparently jet-powered fighters flying in space), or too futuristic (Star Wars' Ion Engine powered TIEs for example).

And as a side note, I believe the US experimented extensively with "parasitic" fighters in the early-to-mid days of the Cold War, and after a couple of decades of trying they gave up on the concept... Perhaps technology has changed enough to warrant re-examination of this though. A B-52 would look mighty impressive with Six UCAVs hanging from its wings, or a B-2 lanuching UAVs from its two internal bays.

The best "advice" I can glean from fiction off the top of my head is how UCAVs are used in Macross Frontier, in that they are controlled closely by an EW craft (similar to one of the new Growlers) and this keeps them from being jammed or hacked. While this man-machine combo is efficient in a dogfight, it really shines in a CAS scenario where the EW bird isn't constantly in danger of being dropped by more lethal pure fighter craft.

I'm in the process of writing a bit of fiction myself which includes the 6th gen, so I've spent a few hundred hours over the past year or so looking for what an F/A-XX like craft's capabilites are. However, as technology constantly moves forward, its very hard to predict the future.

One question I'd have is what kind of ground-based hostile actions would take place against these new fighters (or, being more direct, what ground-based tech would make the world a dangerous place for 5th generation fighters?). SAMs are useless against them, so the only thing I can think of is an "area denial system"... In concept, something like a Claymore mine for aircraft. Something that could make anything in thousands of miles of cubic space vaporize. Not something that you would aim, but just a "trip-wire" that would be triggered at the slightest hint that a stealth aircraft was in the area. No idea how one could pull this off without a massive EMP or an airburst nuke (that would turn everything from angels 10 to 100 into BBQ). An EMP of that size isn't technically possible, and might not be even twenty years from now (although something like it was featured in one of Tom Clancy's HAWX missions IIRC), and nukes are off the table for political reasons.
So I've thought and researched myself into a corner again...
Crying or Very sad

F-16.net Sponsor

It isn't so much "hacked" as "jammed" and "spoofed" -- and by the Russians, not the Iranians. In the future, maybe they will at least have it fall back on inertial navigation if GPS is telling it lies.. A2A UCAVs aren't going to be really useful until they can manage autonomous navigation by IR/visual sensors. Given that the F-35 seems to be able to pick out targets on its own already, so it may not be too far off, but piloting them remotely with little video screens isn't going to cut it, no matter how close they are.

So, Ace Combat 4 had something like the anti-air weapon you are talking about ("Stonehenge" air burst cannons), but it didn't really make much sense. Long wavelength radar can apparently detect stealth fighters without being able to provide a lock on them, but you could theoretically link that up to a huge barrage of anti-aircraft artillery rockets. On that note, you might look up "Metal Storm" -- which could be set up as an array of rapid fire mortars that fills the air with flack for just a moment.
Oh, and I have a game where the Germans lofted hundreds of tethered balloons that would take down bombers that hit the tether lines.

Semi-autonomous A2A UCAV in rudimentary form... eg, subsonic UCAV with man-in-loop BVR capabilities using fail-safe inputs from other air assets in control and flying as complement to a manned package could probably be feasible around the early 2020s. Fully autonomous dog-fighters, with high-performance and very high-G flight envelopes will probably not be mature until around the mid-30s or so? And no, depending on the scale of performance and capability, those will NOT be cheap either.

Why only subsonic? The advanced UCAVs look like they are built for high speeds. I don't see why dogfighting would be any harder than BVR.

Which super-sonic +10G dogfighting capable UCAV are you referring to, count to 10??

A man-in-the-loop, semi-autonomous sub-sonic BVR launch truck is a bit different than a fully autonomous, supersonic +10G air-superiority UCAV of the future.

we already have autonomous, high G, dogfighting UAVs. Designations are AIM-9 and AIM-120. With all the work being done to enhance LOAL for extreme off boresight (over 90 degrees) and GPS datalinking for mid course guidance, it sounds to me like the idea of parasite drones to do dogfighting is just a really big expensive missile that you expect to recover.

wrightwing wrote:

6th Generation might mean ELO signature reduction against multispectral sensors, as well as against visual/audio detection means. Directed energy weapons. Increased situational awareness/sensor fusion over 5th Generation designs. Improved sensor suites/electronic attack/ISR. Combat radius- 1000-1500nm. M2 Supercruise for extended periods. These are all speculation, but would represent improvements over 5th Generation designs.

This. Most comments from service and industry execs point to broadband all-aspect VLO and more recently ELO. Theyve also mentioned much longer range and as for the F/A-XX an admiral has talked about it as a "F-22 for carriers". Natural progressions in sensors capability as well as DEW. I suspect that most aero-improvements will be geared towards greater efficiency, larger supercruise envelope (think higher and faster then what Raptors are doing now) and improved supersonic agility. The introduction of DEW and HOBS missiles will make subsonic visual fightmaneuvering highly undesirable; BVR all the way.

Outside chance of larger weapons capacity and perhaps advanced materials to reduce airframe weight. It'd be nice to have a F-23 sized jet that weighs around 30,000lbs empty. That maybe too far a stretch though.

geogen wrote:

Which super-sonic +10G dogfighting capable UCAV are you referring to, count to 10??

A man-in-the-loop, semi-autonomous sub-sonic BVR launch truck is a bit different than a fully autonomous, supersonic +10G air-superiority UCAV of the future.

I was thinking from a computing point of view. The air frames are something different, but it isn't like that would be new technology.

We already have 50G turning, single use, supersonic cruising, stratospheric-capable aerial vehicles that carry an internal load to their target; they call them AMRAAM.

shingen wrote:

What about stoichiometric turbine engines? What's interesting is they have no afterburner.

count_to_10 wrote:

Pulse-detonation doesn't really work well. Continuous detonation has some promise, though.

Either one of you care to elaborate?

Stoichiometric turbine engine? Stoichiometric combustion of hydro-carbon fuels would melt/destroy turbine engines of the foreseeable (by TEG) future.

Continuous Detonation Engines? - not thought to work well at 'low-supersonic' speeds, IE - takeoff and 99% of ACM's flight envelope. How do you engage a target or employ weapons at high-supersonic or hypersonic speeds?

Just wondering?

TEG

I haven't heard that kind of limitation for CDE. The concept is still pretty primitive, from what I understand, and they are having a hard time getting it to work with air as apposed to pure O2, but it's more a replacement for the standard combustion chamber than it is a whole new engine design. Where does the "doesn't work well at low speeds" come in?

REF: http://arc.uta.edu/research/cde.htm

Quote:

This engine can operate at hypersonic speeds, but not at low supersonic speeds because the incoming flow must be sufficiently fast enough to create the oblique shock and additionally keep the detonation wave from propagating upstream and out of the engine inlet system.

Anything I've read about CDE, or CDWE state their best suited for Rocket Motors or other hypersonic applications.

TEG

That's a ram jet.
The CDE I have seen just used compressed air, with the detonation waves traveling around in a circle, not hanging on a surface in a supersonic flow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbJgOk2rDbI

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

shingen wrote:

What about stoichiometric turbine engines? What's interesting is they have no afterburner.

count_to_10 wrote:

Pulse-detonation doesn't really work well. Continuous detonation has some promise, though.

Either one of you care to elaborate?

Stoichiometric turbine engine? Stoichiometric combustion of hydro-carbon fuels would melt/destroy turbine engines of the foreseeable (by TEG) future.

Continuous Detonation Engines? - not thought to work well at 'low-supersonic' speeds, IE - takeoff and 99% of ACM's flight envelope. How do you engage a target or employ weapons at high-supersonic or hypersonic speeds?

Just wondering?

TEG

Didn't know the gap between stoichiometric combustion temp and what the blades can handle.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

we already have autonomous, high G, dogfighting UAVs. Designations are AIM-9 and AIM-120. With all the work being done to enhance LOAL for extreme off boresight (over 90 degrees) and GPS datalinking for mid course guidance, it sounds to me like the idea of parasite drones to do dogfighting is just a really big expensive missile that you expect to recover.

Was just thinking a little more about this.
How many AIM-9's (or something similar) could you fit on some kind of modified cruise missile? With data links, you could conceivably launch said missile from over a thousand miles away for a penetrating fighter to direct toward incoming aircraft.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Latest F/A-XX concept