So, a couple of questions to @aasm regarding this concept:
Question #1aasm wrote:is just a little part of a system of sustems, alon with FCAS DP (UCLASS). Different phylosophy.
Since you've told us that F-35 does not follow "system of systems" approach, what other systems are part of Dassault NGF?
Question #2aasm wrote:You see? You are still thinking in terms of platform, not system. I am talking about an open network/system of systems.
aasm wrote:It will be fully netcentric with... Other F-35. That is exactly what Gal Lanata was claiming when he said beware, the F-35 is becoming NATO standard. There is an inversion in order of standards. Instead of a mandatory NATO standard we're seeing a private (closed) owned standard getting mandatory. And this system was not designed from scratch to allow interconnection of other systems. That's why i call it 6th gen premise.
FCAS will be designed so as to be, from scratch, a collaborative system of systems and all its subcomponents (including weapons) will be also. To me (i might be wrong), the underlying change of paradigm is way deeper than what stealth brought.
aasm wrote: However, seen the number of different datalinks, VOIP etc. To manage? All those are why i said F-35 is a premise for 6th gen more than a gen in itself : it is extremely connected. [...]
However, its connectivity did not define its requirements aside of other interconnected platforms. F-35 was built and US are trying to build a network around it. It is not the same as if the definition phase was done for the whole system of systems architecture first, than the assets themselves. Uk attempt on this effect with their "modularity" of NGF is quite smart.
Since you've told us that F-35 was not designed with networking across platforms in mind, and that US "built the F-35 and now is trying to built network around it", which according to you is wrong, outdated approach, I would like to know what is the network that France is going to seamlessly plug this future fighter in? Link 22? Surely, if networking upcoming fighters using advanced tech and building "crutches" to connect legacy systems is wrong, then the opposite must be true and French will pump out the full spectrum of equipment for Army, Navy and Air Force in one go, without any sort of transition period?
Question #3aasm wrote:And MADL is far from being able to sustain collaborative work due to frequency (range is too short) and directionnality. However, link 16 and madl are a start. Far from the bigger scheme. it is a tweaked up IFDL, not much more (which is already great).*Networking and collaborative are two different things, and it is exactly like some try to infer about stealth. Has to be included since the beginning (skin antennas, cooling, optionnaly manned, whatever).
Since you said that MADL is a mediocre datalink for "collaboration" because it is short range and narrowly directional, I would like to know what kind of data transfer solutions will be utilized in the true French 6th gen collaborative warfare? What is the difference between network warfare and collaborative warfare? Is NIFC-CA a network, or a collaboration? What range should "collaborative" datalink have, and why are directonal datalinks bad for "collaborative" warfare?
Question #4aasm wrote:However Hornetfinn, SAAB advertized about "active stealth" concepts for their EW suite, aswell as french CEMAA did talk about active stealth also early this year. I'm perfectl aware that this type of jamming would be much easier to perfrom with a stealthy platform (where do "stealth" start in terms of angle and dB), but not to be discounted. People from SAAB, DAssault and Boeing aren't stupid and they wouldn't compete (and spend a lot of money) i they did not think their own solutions did not have their own advantages.
aasm wrote:About active stealth, i'm citing
"Find the right balance between active and passive furtivity" at 10'50. Plain and simle, from the horse mouth HEad of french Air Force, Gal P. Lavigne.
Why is Dassault NGF a tailless delta, with no canards and internal weapon carriage? Surely not to improve passive RCS reduction measures, because true French stealth is based on "finding the balance between passive and active stealth", and the perfect balance has already been found - it's Rafale! Surely any more investment into passive stealth is excessive over engineering? Or were they wrong about that one and the perfect balance needs more "passive" stealth? What are advantages of "active stealth" on a airframe that has some RCS reduction measures as opposed to VLO airframe that has a
really advanced EW suite?
Question #5aasm wrote:They think that future of combat is not only networked, but collaborative with an open architecture (vs F-35 being a closed ecosystem).
Since you've told us that F-35 is a closed system and americans are hoarding the source code, would like to know under what open source license will the NGF software (written in ADA, unquestionably) be distributed to buyers? In what way will Dassault NGF be an "open architecture?"
Question #7aasm wrote:Already bombs are getting smart and can work as a wolfpack, but once again it is not in a fully integrated and adaptative network. F-35 network isn't so much adaptative (more than F22, certainly but...). F-35 is assembling as many capacities as possible on a platform, 6th gen will distribute capacities and assets so as to generate an effect. Feel to disagree.
aasm wrote:Networking and collaborative are two different things, and it is exactly like some try to infer about stealth. Has to be included since the beginning (skin antennas, cooling, optionnaly manned, whatever).
Okay, please describe "adaptive network" and what effect will be generated once "6th gen will distribute assets"? What is the difference between "collaborative" and "network" warfare? What does "cooling" and "optionally manned" have to do with collaboration?
Question #8aasm wrote:I'd prefer saying that fifth gen is a force multiplier and that stealth is ONE of multiple capabilities allowing it. But we are far from the original discussion...
5th gen is the paramount of multirole airplanes. And first steps into 6th gen. Paramount will change when capacities, instead of being pulled into a single platform, will be directed by highly networked and specialized assets at a desired effect whatever the platform. (at least it is my opinion)
aasm wrote:For many of us, as i said somewhere, F-35 is both the paramount of fourth Gen (in terms of capabilities) and a premice to 6th (in terms of networking).
Since you've told us that F-35 is not a true 5tg gen but rather the ultimate 4th gen and a premise for 6th gen... I would like to hear your definition of " true 5th gen" - just 3-4 bullet points, maybe a couple of NOGO elements also? Additinal question, what is F-22?
Looking forward for your answers.