In answer to Benjamin's Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Aircraft, specifically Fighter question of October 4, 2020.
I'd say, as the US is still at the beginning of the process of operationally mass deploying its 3 variants of 5th Generation (Gen) F-35s AND the US is in the middle of developing its 5th-6th Gen B-21s, then 6th Gen FIGHTER deployment may begin in the late 2030s.
If the 6th Gen FIGHTER is of flying wing configuration, then lack of tails would normally prevent a fighter from radically manoeuvring in a dogfight. However if it has highly developed vectored thrust jets that could be a way of manoeuvring radically.
Tailless, flying wings, tend to have low radar observability. They also tend to be subsonic. The major reason being flying wing configuration prioritizers stealth as being the No.1 priority. Also going supersonic is very non-stealthily Noisy and it can generate IR visible Heat in the engine ducts and airframe generally. But a 6th Gen fighter being able to fly supersonic is desirable, if not essential.
[Even 6th Gen fighters, in peacetime, need to be able to intercept and escort out fighters trespassing on national airspace. Its no good shooting a missile or directed energy (laser) weapon at a trespassing aircraft in peacetime. As Japan has found, to see off-escort trespassing Chinese fighters, that are travelling supersonic, Japan's F-35s are often not fast enough or manoeuvrable enough. Japan is therefore upgrading its (faster and more manoeuvrable than F-35s) F-15s to extend their lives. This is rather than simply replacing its F-15 interceptors with relatively slow, less manoeuvrable, F-35s.
So, over time, Japan and other F-35 customers, will demand faster, more manoeuvrable, fighters or more upgrades to existing-effective interceptor-fighters. Don't be surprised if the US begins to make available, assembly-line-restarted export-grade F-22s for its allies, from the late 2020s.]
As well as for peacetime interception, being able to traval supersonically will be important for a 6th Gen fighter to get from its base (or aircraft carrier) to the area of combat quickly.
For 6th Gen flying wing fighters, new advanced more powerful engines, new airframe materials and sonic boom mitigation advances may allow a 6th Gen fighter to operate supersonically, be manoeuvrable and be stealthy, simultaneously. But such a 6th Gen aircraft may only be mature in the late 2030s. In the meantime the US's closest Western allies, who have already bought F-35s, may be offered export grade F-22s, at a price.
Pete
9 comments:
Good write up, that said a 6th Gen fighter will never get into a dog-fight, it will either shoot down or be shot down from a distance. If it gets into a dog fight then it has become obsolete
F-35s are "Air Superiority" fighters, more multirole Stealth
Australia will need to keep F18's for some time and not just as Growlers. But IMHO RAAF should have looked to procure say 50 Gripen E's to not only fill this role as they are faster, but also far more cost effective to fly per hour and they will be more than good enough to tackle any nearby treat. The F-35's can be used for "high Threat" use, running for less hours doing "hack" work and so hopefully keep going longer.
The elephant in the room is not capability, the capability of striking at distance is our most harrowing scenario. The range of our air assets are relatively short compared to Russian offerings. Our greatest air asset of the day was the F-111, an entity that projected strike capability. Just having that capability, was a warning for any threat in the region. The “Tyranny of Distance” is a duel edged sword, it is a dissuading factor factor for aggressors but exposes us to being not able to strike substantially at distance. Striking an enemy on your doorstep is too little to late. Fighters, able to fly sorties thousands of kilometres and deliver longe range missiles are far more applicable that a short range offering we seem to be entrenched in right now. An F-111 “ethos”,equivalence in our modern times, is what would blend with our EW capability, giving immediate reaction to whatever the threat. To much time is being devoted, to short range capability, it’s not value for money. Having B-21s, leased, retiring B-1Bs, Arsenal ships, mobile ICBMs on our northern perimeters present “ real” capability.
In yesteryears it used to be the case that there was a surfeit of cheap light fighters on the market. Mirage 2000, Mirage 3 variants like Cheetah or Kfir which Denel or IAI would help to upgrade, F-5s with spare airframe life (like the superlative F-5S), early F-16s, the AIDC F-CK-1, etc., and yes, the Gripen. They were supersonic and had goos thrust to weight ratios, vital characreristics for high altitude interception of airliners (they go damn fast and damn high!), spy planes and intruding fighters.
It is a shame therefore that these options are largely invalid because modern first-world budgetary prudence requires the most bang for buck, and heavy advanced fighters make the most of the one or two expensive crew you're going to put in them. To my mind that explains the limited success of the Gripen and JF-17: they're not enough for frontline roles
Light fighters are a LUXURY.
But to preserve airframe hours there is still a need for cheap light fighters that can do air policing and ADIZ enforcement duties.
To my mind there are only two options to solve the problem. The best, I think, is to merge the light fighter and advanced jet trainer platforms.
The only supersonic option on the market is the KAI T-50. The trainer variant already has a passable search and fire control radar in the shape of the APG-67, the original Tigershark radar. If you are willing to deal with the Koreans and Americans (F404 subject to ITAR and only assembled by Samsung Techwin), it's the best option out there.
Another potential option not fully adapted is the AIDC AT-5 AJT. It's a development of the F-CK-1 Ching Kuo/IDF operated by the ROCAF, with radar, gun, afterburner, and most weapons delivery kit removed, while the alloy structure was replaced with composite. It is "thickened" and hollower in profile to fit substantial fuel reserves. Incidentally, many Taiwanese AIDC engineers were seconded to KAI to work on the T-50 programme (in systems engineering which the Koreans had inadequate expertise with), and the T-50 drew on much of the F-CK-1 programme's work.
However, if you don't base your lead in flight training program at parts of your territory where these jets can do interception, there is no point! Furthermore, do you really want your training cadre to spend their time doing interceptions and shadowing?
The second option is to use combat capable UAV. Unmanned and equipped with adequate autonomy and robust directional communications, they will be much cheaper to fly and less taxing to op tempo. Compared to missiles, they fly further, provide a visible show of force, and offer intermediate escalation of force. However, since there is no pilot inside, there is less of a life-at-stake dissuasion value, nobody to scapegoat when things go wrong, and the jet might make bad decisions when under overwhelming electronic interference.
Making the platform optionally manned permits some leeway, e.g. establishing a squadron under-strength in pilots, and flying two-ship interceptions as manned/loyal wingman.
It is a tricky problem to solve, but we do well to remember that the other side has maintenance and op-tempo problems too! Putting them on the backfoot by repeated incursions during a period of tension could strain their maintenance capabilities to the point where their jets don't even make it home.
Sorry Peter, wrong article. Will comment there instead.
Hi Chuck Mc [at October 7, 2020 at 4:49 PM]
Yes Australia (with Superhornets, Growlers and F-35As) and other regional airforces are realising that their F-35s are no substitute for faster level flight and faster climbing
Peacetime interceptors, to escort out hostile trespassers.
F-35s are not "Air Superiority" fighters (like the F-22 is) but stealthy fighter-bombers or strike aircraft, hence the original name "Joint Strike Fighter".
Australia rightly concluded Superhornets have adequate (better than F-35) speed/climb. Australia did/does not need originally anti-Russian RAPID CLIMB West European or F-15/F-16 US fighters.
Australia's geography permits longer warning times than NATO, whose fighter need to climb faster, as NATO fighters are much closer to the hostile-RUSSIAN border,
Regards
Pete
Hi Lee McCurtayne [October 8, 2020 at 11:22 AM]
The range of Australia F-18s and F-35s are as long as the (long out of production) F-111s due tp AIR-TO-AIR REFUELING that Australia has.
There is a small faction in Australia air debate who ask, why don't we buy the heavy bomber capability that the US has - like future B-21:
- "retiring B-1Bs" doesn't work that way with high performance, highly stressed, airframes
- "Arsenal ships" or arsenal aircraft, have never worked
- presumably Australian "mobile ICBMs" a whole NUCLEAR WARHEAD issue for the 2030s-40s.
- The US Secretary of State offered US MRBMs to be based in Australia over the last 12 months. Australia quickly rejected it.
__________________________________________
Australia Heavy Bomber Faction may as well ask Why didn't Australai buy B-52s, the original B-1s and B-2s?
The answer is Australia doesn't have the money to buy all of the aircraft types of an Air Force Super Power. The US didn't/isn't offering heavy bombers to anyone, because they are nuclear capable and the export price is too high.
The B-2s cost US$2 Billion EACH 20-30 years ago, could Australia pay more than US$One Billion Dollars for ONE heavy bomber? or for ONE ICBM, for that matter?
Pete
Hi October retortPouch [your October 9, 2020 at 1:39 PM and October 9, 2020 at 1:40 PM]
Unfortunately the new Blogspot functionality requires me to delete your posts, or render your future posts Automatically Spammed.
This is also BEFORE I am allowed to process other posts-comments.
Sooo I need to publish your [October 9, 2020 at 1:39 PM and October 9, 2020 at 1:40 PM] posts UNTIL you provide the Replacement(s) then I can take the [October 9, 2020 at 1:39 PM and October 9, 2020 at 1:40 PM] posts down.
Regards
Pete
I wonder how the loyal wingman program by Boeing could also change the way air warfare works as well.
Hi Benjamin
I think about 2 or 3 Loyal Wingman (LW) UCAVs per 4th, 5th and then 6th generation manned jets can do much of the more dangerous, longer range portions of a mission.
In some missions the LW may be one-way disposable, integrating much explosive into their airframes. So, in the end-run LWs act as very high end cruise missiles.
Also the likely high cost of 6th generation fighters means there may be far fewer fighters and living pilots - with LWs partly making up the numbers.
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment