Caccia di sesta generazione

[FAS]

In inglese.....articolo del 2009

Ref.: AF Magazine
The technologies are emerging, but what’s needed is a program to pull them together.
Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth generation [fighter] capabilities necessary for future air dominance.” The Secretary of the Air Force, Michael B. Donley, and the USAF Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, issued that statement in an April 13 Washington Post article.

The Air Force may have to move a little faster to develop that next generation fighter. While anticipated F-22 and F-35 inventories seem settled, there won’t be enough to fix shortfalls in the fighter fleet over the next 20 years, as legacy fighters retire faster than fifth generation replacements appear.

The Air Force will have to answer a host of tough questions about the nature of the next fighter.

Should it provide a true “quantum leap” in capability, from fifth to sixth generation, or will some interim level of technology suffice? When will it have to appear? What kinds of fighters will potential adversaries be fielding in the next 20 years? And, if the program is delayed, will a defense industry with nothing to work on in the meantime lose its know-how to deliver the needed system?

What seems certain is that more is riding on the Air Force’s answers than just replacing worn-out combat aircraft.

Initial concept studies for what would become the F-22 began in the early 1980s, when production of the F-15 was just hitting its stride. It took 20 years to go from those concepts to initial operational capability. Industry leaders believe that it will probably take another 20 years to field a next generation fighter.

That may be late to need. By 2030, according to internal USAF analyses, the service could be as many as 971 aircraft short of its minimum required inventory of 2,250 fighters. That assumes that all planned F-35s are built and delivered on time and at a rate of at least 48 per year. The shortfall is due to the mandatory retirement of F-15s and F-16s that will have exceeded their service lives and may no longer be safe to fly.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has set the tone for the tactical aviation debate. He opposed the F-22 as being an expensive, “exquisite” solution to air combat requirements, and has put emphasis on the less costly F-35 Lightning II instead. He considers it exemplary of the kind of multirole platforms, applicable to a wide variety of uses, that he believes the US military should be buying in coming years. He and his technology managers have described this approach as the “75 percent” solution.

Gates has also forecast that a Russian fifth generation fighter will be operational in 2016—Russia says it will fly the fighter this year—and a Chinese version just four years later. Given that US legacy fighters are already matched or outclassed by “generation four-plus-plus” fighters, if Russia and China build their fifth generation fighters in large numbers, the US would be at a clear airpower disadvantage in the middle of the 2020s. That’s a distinct possibility, as both countries have openly stated their intentions to build world-class air fleets. If they do, the 75 percent solution fails.

What You See Is What You Get

The Air Force declined to offer official comment on the status of its sixth generation fighter efforts. Privately, senior leaders have said they have been waiting to see how the F-22 and F-35 issues sorted out before establishing a structured program for a next generation fighter.

The Air Force has a large classified budget, but it seems there is no “black” sixth generation fighter program waiting in the wings. A senior industry official, with long-term, intimate knowledge of classified efforts, said the F-22 wasn’t stopped at 187 aircraft because a secret, better fighter is nearly ready to be deployed. He said, “What you see is what you get.”

That opinion was borne out in interviews with the top aeronautic technologists of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, the three largest remaining US airframers. They said they were unaware of an official, dedicated Air Force sixth generation fighter program and are anxiously waiting to see what capabilities the service wants in such a fighter.

The possibilities for a sixth generation fighter seem almost the stuff of science fiction.

It would likely be far stealthier than even the fifth generation aircraft. It may be able to change its shape in flight, “morphing” to optimize for either speed or persistence, and its engines will likely be retunable in-flight for efficient supersonic cruise or subsonic loitering.


The sixth generation fighter will likely have directed energy weapons—high-powered microwaves and lasers for defense against incoming missiles or as offensive weapons themselves. Munitions would likely be of the “dial an effect” type, able to cause anything from impairment to destruction of an air or ground target.

Materials and microelectronics technologies would combine to make the aircraft a large integrated sensor, possibly eliminating the need for a nose radar as it is known today. It would be equipped for making cyber attacks as well as achieving kinetic effects, but would still have to be cost-effective to make, service, and modify.

Moreover, the rapid advancement of unmanned aircraft technologies could, in 20 years or so, make feasible production of an autonomous robotic fighter. However, that is considered less likely than the emergence of an uninhabited but remotely piloted aircraft with an off-board “crew,” possibly comprising many operators.

Not clear, yet, is whether the mission should be fulfilled by a single, multirole platform or a series of smaller, specialized aircraft, working in concert.

“I think this next round [of fighter development] is probably going to be dominated by ever-increasing amounts of command and control information,” said Paul K. Meyer, vice president and general manager of Northrop Grumman’s Advanced Programs and Technology Division.

Meyer forecast that vast amounts of data will be available to the pilot, who may or may not be on board the aircraft. The pilot will see wide-ranging, intuitive views of “the extended world” around the aircraft, he noted. The aircraft will collect its own data and seamlessly fuse it with off-board sensors, including those on other aircraft. The difference from fifth generation will be the level of detail and certainty—the long-sought automatic target recognition.

Directed Energy Weapons

Embedded sensors and microelectronics will also make possible sensor arrays in “locations that previously weren’t available because of either heat or the curvature of the surface,” providing more powerful and comprehensive views of the battlefield, Meyer noted. Although the aircraft probably won’t be autonomous, he said, it will be able to “learn” and advise the pilot as to what actions to take—specifically, whether a target should be incapacitated temporarily, damaged, or destroyed.

Traditional electronics will probably give way to photonics, said Darryl W. Davis, president of Boeing’s advanced systems division.

“You could have fewer wires,” said Davis. “You’re on a multiplexed, fiber-optic bus ... that connects all the systems, and because you can do things at different wavelengths of light, you can move lots of data around airplanes much faster, with much less weight in terms of ... wire bundles.”

Fiber optics would also be resistant to jamming or spoofing of data and less prone to cyber attack.

A “digital wingman” could accompany the main fighter as an extra sensor-shooter smart enough to take verbal instructions, Meyer forecasted.

Directed energy weapons could play a big role in deciding how agile a sixth generation fighter would have to be, Meyer noted. “Speed of light” weapons, he added, could “negate” the importance of “the maneuverability we see in today’s fashionable fighters.” There won’t be time to maneuver away from a directed energy attack.


Pulse weapons could also fry an enemy aircraft’s systems—or those of a ground target. Based on what “we have seen and we make at Northrop Grumman,” Meyer said, “in the next 20 years ... that type of technology is going to be available.”

With an appropriate engine—possibly an auxiliary engine—on board to provide power for directed energy weapons, there could be an “unlimited magazine” of shots, Meyer said.

Hypersonics—that is, the ability of an air vehicle to travel at five times the speed of sound, or faster—has routinely been suggested as an attribute of sixth generation fighters, but the industry leaders are skeptical the capability will be ready in time.

While there have been some successes with experimental hypersonic propulsion, the total amount of true hypersonic flying time is less than 15 minutes, and the leap to an operational fighter in 20 years might be a leap too far.

“It entails a whole new range of materials development, due to ... sensors, fuzes, apertures, etc.,” Meyer noted, “all of which must operate in that intense heat environment at ... Mach 5-plus.”

Still, “it is indeed an option that we would consider” because targets will be fleeting and require quick, surgical strikes at great distances. However, such an approach would probably be incompatible with a loitering capability.

Davis said he thinks hypersonics “will start to show up in sixth generation,” but not initially as the platform’s power plant, but rather in the aircraft’s kinetic munitions.

“I think it will start with applications to weapons,” Davis said. And they may not necessarily be just weapons but “high-speed reconnaissance platforms for short missions on the way to the target.”

Because of the extreme speed of hypersonic platforms and especially directed energy weapons, Davis thinks it will be critical to have “persistent eyes on target” because speed-of-light weapons can’t be recalled “once you’ve pulled the trigger,” and even at hypersonic speed, a target may move before the weapon arrives. That would suggest a flotilla of stealthy drones or sensors positioned around the battlefield.

Not only will hypersonics require years more work, Davis said it must be combined with other, variable-cycle engines that will allow an aircraft to take off from sea level, climb to high altitude, and then engage a hypersonic engine. Those enabling propulsion elements are not necessarily near at hand in a single package.

The sixth generation fighter, whatever it turns out to be, will still be a machine and will need to be serviced, repaired, and modified, according to Neil Kacena, deputy director of Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works advanced projects division. He is less confident that major systems such as radar will be embedded in the aircraft skin.

“If the radar doesn’t work, and now you have to take the wing off, ... then that may not be the technology that will find its way onto a sixth gen aircraft,” he said. In designing the next fighter, life cycle costs will be crucial, and so practical considerations will have to be accommodated.

Toward that end, he said, Lockheed Martin is working on new composite manufacturing techniques that use far fewer fasteners, less costly tooling, and therefore lower start-up and sustainment costs. It demonstrated those technologies recently on the Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft program.

Given the anticipated capabilities of the Russian and Chinese fifth generation fighters, when will a sixth generation aircraft have to be available?

Davis said the Air Force and Navy, not industry, will have to decide how soon they need a new generation of fighters. However, “if the services are thinking they need something in 2020” when foreign fifth generation fighters could be proliferating in large numbers, “we’re going to have to do some things to our existing generation of platforms,” such as add the directed energy weapons or other enhancements.


Kacena agreed, saying that Lockheed Martin has “engaged with both services and supplied them data and our perspectives” about the next round of fighter development. If the need exists to make a true quantum leap, then sixth generation is the way to go, but, “if it’s driven by the reduction in force structure [and] ... the equipment is just getting old and worn out in that time frame, then [we] may very well be on a path of continuous improvement of fifth generation capabilities.” Lockheed Martin makes both the F-22 and F-35.

He said the company’s goal is to find the knee in the curve where “you get them the most bang for the buck without an 80 to 90 percent solution. Something that doesn’t take them beyond the nonlinear increase in cost.”

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance and a fighter pilot, said the next fighter generation may well have characteristics fundamentally different from any seen today, but he urged defense decision-makers to keep an open mind and not ignore hard-learned lessons from history.

Although great strides have been made in unmanned aircraft, said Deptula, “we have a long way to go to achieve the degree of 360-degree spherical situation awareness, rapid assimilation of information, and translation of that information into action that the human brain, linked with its on-site sensors, can accomplish.”

Numbers Count, Too

Despite rapid increases in computer processing power, it will be difficult for a machine to cope with “an infinite number of potential situations that are occurring in split seconds,” Deptula added, noting that, until such a capability is proved, “we will still require manned aircraft.”

It’s important to note that America’s potential adversaries will have access to nearly all the technologies now only resident with US forces, Deptula said. Thinking 20 to 30 years out, it will be necessary to invest properly to retain things US forces depend on, such as air superiority.

However, he warned not to put too much emphasis on technology, per se. “Just as precision air weapons and, to a certain degree, cyberspace are redefining our definition of mass in today’s fight, we have to be very wary of how quickly ‘mass’ in its classic sense can return in an era of mass-precision and mass-cyber capabilities for all.”

In other words, numbers count, and too few fighters, even if they are extremely advanced, are still too few.

Hanging over the sixth generation fighter debate is this stark fact: The relevant program should now be well under way, but it has not even been defined. If the Pentagon wants a sixth generation capability, it will have to demonstrate that intent, and soon. Industry needs that clear signal if it is to invest its own money in developing the technologies needed to make the sixth generation fighter come about.

Moreover, the sixth generation program is necessary to keep the US aerospace industry on the cutting edge. Unless it is challenged, if the “90 percent” solution is needed in the future, industry may not be able to answer the call.

Under Gates, Pentagon technology leaders have said they want to avoid cost and schedule problems by deferring development until technologies are more mature. Unfortunately, this safe and steady approach does not stimulate leap-ahead technologies.

Meyer said, “We need to have challenges to our innovative thoughts, our engineering talents, our technology integration and development that would ... push us ... to the point where industry has to perform beyond expectations.”

He noted that today’s F-35 is predicated on largely proven technologies and “affordability,” but it was the B-2 and F-22 programs that really paved the way for the systems that underpin modern air combat.

The B-2 bomber, he noted, “was a program of significant discovery,” because it involved a great deal of invention to meet required performance. The B-2 demanded “taking ... basic research and developing it in the early ... phases” of the program, which yielded nonfaceted stealth, enhanced range and payload, nuclear hardening, new antennas, radars, and flight controls.

Today, Meyer said, most programs are entering full-scale development only when they’ve reached a technology readiness level of six or higher (see chart).

“We probably had elements on the B-2 ... that were at four, and a lot at five,” Meyer said.

Programs such as the sixth generation fighter “are the ones we relish because they make us think, they make us take risks that we wouldn’t normally take, and in taking on those risks we’ve discovered the new technologies that have made our industry great,” he asserted.

Davis said that other countries are going to school on the US fighter industry and taking its lessons to heart.

“We still think you have to build things—fly them and test them—in order to know what works and what doesn’t,” said Davis. “And, at some point, if you don’t do that, just do it theoretically, it doesn’t get you where you need to be.”

He added, “If we don’t continue to move forward, they will catch us.”

[FAS]

qualche disegno in piu

http://weapons.technology.youngester.co ... xx-on.html

[Mettiu]

interessante articolo!
notare come grossomodo la forma ipotetica del prossimo caccia di 6a gen sia un f35 un pò più affusolato e senza deriva.

Interessante il punto "possible Morphing capability".

[sidew]

Interessante il punto "possible Morphing capability".

Mi fa venire in mente i Valkyrie in Macross

[Almost Blue]

Quindi non sanno ancora se metterci o no il pilota dentro.

[Maxx]

Ecco, appunto. Io spero che mio figlio li porterà per aria personalmente gli aeroplani, piuttosto che stare in una sala di controllo con un joystick e un caffè.

[FAS]

Ecco, appunto. Io spero che mio figlio li porterà per aria personalmente gli aeroplani, piuttosto che stare in una sala di controllo con un joystick e un caffè.

e se volesse fare l'architetto?


un velivolo comandato da terra, escluse determinate missioni wild wessel, é molto piú efficace e riduce i rischi di perdere vite umane

considera che di parla si sistemi d'arma

[Maxx]

Ecco, appunto. Io spero che mio figlio li porterà per aria personalmente gli aeroplani, piuttosto che stare in una sala di controllo con un joystick e un caffè.

e se volesse fare l'architetto?

Impossibile. Non sarò certo io a imporgli cosa deve fare nella vita, lo lascerò assolutamente libero di scegliere se fare il pilota in Aeronautica o in Marina! Al massimo l'Esercito, ma deve essere Folgore o Sassari.

[MarcoGT]

Impossibile. Non sarò certo io a imporgli cosa deve fare nella vita, lo lascerò assolutamente libero di scegliere se fare il pilota in Aeronautica o in Marina! Al massimo l'Esercito, ma deve essere Folgore o Sassari.

Non credo sarà così facile imporgli cosa fare

[Mettiu]

Impossibile. Non sarò certo io a imporgli cosa deve fare nella vita, lo lascerò assolutamente libero di scegliere se fare il pilota in Aeronautica o in Marina! Al massimo l'Esercito, ma deve essere Folgore o Sassari.

scherziamo?!!in italia???
se mio figlio\a mi chiedesse di studiare in accademia aeronautica, prima cosa subito uno schiaffo, poi gli chiederei chi gli a messo quest'idea e come si è permesso, e poi subito a tornare a giocare a calcio\a fare la velina

[richelieu]

USAF ..... uno sguardo al futuro ..... guardando al passato .....

Defining Sixth-Generation Fighters .....

—JOHN A. TIRPAK (7/30/2014)

The Air Force is working on a capability to succeed the F-22, but it is still defining what it might be.
Speaking during an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast event in Arlington, Va., ACC chief Gen. Mike Hostage said he “ told the people working on it, ‘don’t think in terms of a platform.’ ”
In other words, the next fighter might not be an airplane, but a set of technologies that could be stand-alone or mounted on existing aircraft.
Hostage said “it’s okay with me” if the next air superiority system is not a manned fighter.
“It will happen someday” that a ground-based operator will have all the situation awareness needed to fly a fighter remotely, he said.
Directed-energy weapons are among the attributes a sixth-gen system is likely to have, particularly because they offer a nearly unlimited magazine of shots, he noted.
Hostage said his only frustration with the F-22—besides the small size of the fleet—is that while it can penetrate deeply into denied airspace, “it can only kill eight bad guys” when it gets there.
Hostage hinted at “amazing” technologies that might be back-fitted on legacy, fourth-gen aircraft that could make them relevant for decades, but he declined to name them.
He wants to make it costly for an enemy to defend against offensive capabilities “that are cheap to us.”

Fonte ..... il 'Daily Report' dell'AFA ..... http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... hters.aspx
.

[ruotenelvento]

Boh, a me 'sta semplificazione giornalistica delle generazioni non mi ha mai convinto

http://aviodada.wordpress.com/category/ ... n-fighter/

[richelieu]

Ulteriori dettagli sulle dichiarazioni del generale Hostage .....

"General: Air Force already looking ahead to 6th-generation fighter plane" .....
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/general- ... e-1.295821

[richelieu]

E la Marina USA depotenzia il futuro drone onde salvaguardare il caccia pilotato di 'prossima generazione' .....

The striking power and stealth of the U.S. Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) concept was reduced to protect the role of the service’s next-generation of manned fighters, USNI News has learned.
In particular, the change in UCLASS from a deep strike stealthy penetrator into the current lightly armed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) focused aircraft was — in large part — to preserve a manned version of the F/A-XX replacement for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, several Navy, Pentagon and industry sources confirmed to USNI News.

Fonte ..... "UCLASS Requirements Shifted To Preserve Navy’s Next Generation Fighter" .....
http://news.usni.org/2014/07/31/uclass- ... on-fighter
.

[richelieu]

Caccia di 6^ generazione ..... US Navy, USAF e ..... Intelligenza Artificiale .....

Artificial intelligence will likely feature prominently onboard the Pentagon’s next-generation successors to the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

Fonte ..... "Navy’s Next Fighter Likely to Feature Artificial Intelligence" .....
http://news.usni.org/2014/08/28/navys-n ... telligence
.

[lorenzo-radi]

Intelligenza artificiale....
Come questo?

[richelieu]

La Marina USA guarda al 'dopo 2030' .....

The U.S. Navy has formally asked the defense industry to participate in a series of exchanges to provide technical insights into the next-generation replacement for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler in the 2030s.
The exchanges, which have been dubbed Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs), are a precursor to a full-up analysis of alternatives (AOA) for the F/A-XX strike fighter aircraft replacement program that is expected to start in 2015.

Fonte ..... "Navy Taps Industry in Quest For Next Generation Fighter" .....
http://news.usni.org/2014/09/10/navy-ta ... on-fighter
.

[Valerio Ricciardi]

Non sarò certo io a imporgli cosa deve fare nella vita, lo lascerò assolutamente libero di scegliere se fare il pilota in Aeronautica o in Marina! Al massimo l'Esercito, ma deve essere Folgore o Sassari.

E se poi la politica e la diplomazia per un caso della statistica (tranquillo, sarà difficile) riuscissero per tutta la durata della sua vita professionale a fare come sempre dovrebbero il loro lavoro, e non vi fosse per lui mai occasione di abbattere in un eroico dogfight lancia in resta e sidewinder attivato alcun altro aereo ostile o di bombardare qualche corteo nuziale pashtun scambiandolo per una colonna di guerriglieri armati in trasferimento, che faresti?

Cercheresti di diseredarlo lasciando almeno la disponibile all'American Rifle Association?

Ah quanto è bello l'odore del Napalm...

[Valerio Ricciardi]

Comunque questo futuro unmanned non è che mi esalti così tanto, a meno di non riuscire a rendere preventivamente unmanned anche gli scrostati villaggi di povera gente che bombarderanno.

Ci manca solo che azzeri anche il rischio per il pilota, e lo tieni lontano dal contesto che deve distruggere, così uccidere e mutilare, quasi azzerando in certi contesti locali intere generazioni sarà sempre più un videogame, un problema di qualità dell'addestramento.

Considerato quel che l'uomo è capace di fare dei suoi simili in contesti in cui col sangue altrui si sporca positivamente e vistosamente le mani (non pensiamo solo all'Iraq, ricordiamoci dei russi in Cecenia o dei massacri innescati dagli europei degli Hutu contro i Tutsi) non riesco ad immaginare nemmeno dove potrebbe spingersi una volta che lo scenario per lui siano display, immagini video e joystick. E che i suoi vestiti somiglino a quelli di un bancario o di un tecnico di un laboratorio di analisi, non abbian più ragione di essere robusti e mimetici.

Sono gli stracci di cui è coperto il vecchio contadino laotiano che si somiglieranno a quelli di oggi anche fra cinquant'anni. Ma il materiale che gli strapperà, se ne avrà il tempo, quell'ultimo lancinante grido di sofferenza prima del buio sarà molto, molto più avanzato, ci sarà ben più intelligenza dentro di quanto non sia già stato.

Invidieranno i bambini di Hiroshima con la pelle ustionata della schiena che gli si staccava a fogli.

[FAS]

Non ci sono basi e presupposti per vederli volare nei nostri cieli.

#1 Sono vietati dai regolamenti. Il peso massimo al decollo di queste piattaforme é tanto piu piccolo quanto piu grande é la densita della popolazione delle aree che devono sorvolare.

#2 Non esistono ancora sistemi automatici che identificano ed evitano ostacoli sulla rotta.

Vi invito a far riferimento alle UAV classes for ground impact analysis....le trovate on line. In particolare il parametro Ppen probability of penetration vi chiarira la questione

[richelieu]

In Europa .....

Six European defense companies have been awarded a €150m ($192m) contract by the French and British governments for a two year Feasibility Phase study on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) to replace the Rafale and Typhoon combat aircraft in 2030.

Fonte ..... "French, British industries knuckle down to work on FCAS" .....
http://aviationweek.com/blog/french-bri ... -work-fcas

Inoltre ..... "ANALYSIS: Anglo-French FCAS feasibility study kicks off" .....
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ks-405711/
.

[richelieu]

Ma, come già brevemente puntualizzato nell'articolo di 'Flight International', il velivolo attualmente in fase di studio potrebbe anche essere pilotato .....

A manned option for the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) that is being studied by an Anglo-French industrial team has not been ruled out, according to British officials attending a formal launch of the $180 million two-year feasibility study in Paris on November 5.
Bernard Gray, the UK MoD Chief of Defence Materiel, and Ian King, CEO of BAE Systems, each indicated that a piloted vehicle is still an option.

Fonte ..... "Anglo-French FCAS May Not Be Unmanned" .....
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... e-unmanned

Si tratterà ora di vedere se questo accordo anglo-francese riuscirà ad arrivare ad una qualche conclusione (anche con l'apporto di altri paesi) o se farà la fine di altri programmi congiunti europei (che hanno avuto la Francia come partner) quali lo 'Anglo-French VG' ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFVG
..... o, in anni più recenti, lo 'ECA/FEFA/EFA' .....
.

[richelieu]

Un caccia di 6^ generazione frutto di una collaborazione fra Europa e USA ..... qualcuno, in Airbus, sembra crederci ..... ma, al momento attuale, la cosa è ancora molto, troppo lontana e gli ostacoli che si frappongono appaiono difficili da superare .....

Just imagine it: Airbus teams up with Lockheed Martin or Boeing on a program to build a NATO fighter.
Detached from reality?
Not, apparently, to Domingo Ureña Raso, Airbus Defence and Space executive vice president for military aircraft.
Speaking on a panel at the 2014 NATO Industry Forum in Split, Croatia, on Nov. 13, Raso was discussing the need to collaborate more with industry from various countries on issues such as cybersecurity when he was asked if that meant he would be open to teaming up with Boeing or Lockheed on a new fighter.
His response?
“Why not? Why not?”

Fonte ..... "A NATO Fighter? ..... http://www.defensenews.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 4311230016
.

[richelieu]

Caccia di 6^ generazione ..... gli USA annunciano una strategia .....

Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall unveiled part of his strategy for procuring a next-generation fighter for the Air Force and Navy in congressional testimony last week.
The core of the strategy, Kendall told members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), is called the Aerospace Innovation Initiative.

Fonte ..... "Kendall Unveils 6th Gen Fighter Strategy" .....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /22597515/

Dal momento che si parla di due aerei che utilizzeranno parti in comune .....

Whereas the F-35 joint strike fighter was billed as one plane that can fit the needs of the Air Force, Navy and Marines, the next-generation fighter will instead be two planes that share common parts.

..... c'è da augurarsi che non si tratti di un novello programma 'TFX' .....
.

[richelieu]

Il caccia di 6^ generazione ..... come lo vede il Capo delle Operazioni Navali .....

The Navy’s planned next generation fighter will likely rely less on the speed and stealth that has defined the current generation of U.S. tactical aircraft and could feature an unmanned option, the Chief of Naval Operations said on Wednesday.
CNO Adm. Jonathan Greenert described options for the next Navy fighter – the F/A-XX – that would overwhelm or suppress enemy air defenses instead of outrunning or hiding from threats.

Fonte ..... "CNO Greenert: Navy’s Next Fighter Might Not Need Stealth, High Speed" .....
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/04/cno-gre ... high-speed


CNO Adm. Jonathan Greenert .....http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=130
.

[richelieu]

..... ronzii, brusii, mormorii ..... a commento delle dichiarazioni rilasciate dall'ammiraglio Greenert .....

..... Greenert’s claims about the declining value of stealth and speed pose some stark questions for the armed forces and American taxpayers.
The U.S. has spent decades and hundreds of billions of dollars developing and fielding the “super-duper fast” F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, both of which rely on stealth to be effective.
These fifth generation aircraft are expected to be the foundation of the U.S. fighter fleet for years to come.
If their capabilities quickly become inadequate to meet America’s security needs, the U.S. could find itself facing a glaring fighter gap.

Fonte ..... "THE BUZZ - US Navy's 6th Generation Fighter Jets Will Be Slow and Unstealthy" .....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... lthy-12193
.

[MatteF88]

Avessero portato avanti questo sarebbero già a posto

http://yf-23.net/F-23A.html

[richelieu]

Avessero portato avanti questo sarebbero già a posto
http://yf-23.net/F-23A.html

Quale dolente tasto sei andato a toccare .....

[sidew]

Il caccia più bello mai visto... T_T

[MatteF88]

Il caccia più bello mai visto... T_T

Il biposto e il NATF
http://yf-23.net/F-23A.html

[richelieu]

Adelante, Pedro ..... con juicio .....

..... verso il caccia di 6^ generazione ..... ma con le dovute cautele .....

Next Fighter Plan .....

John A. Tirpak (2/13/2015)

The Air Force is deliberately waiting to launch a next-generation fighter program, until it considers all the ways that air superiority will be achieved in 20 years, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Hawk Carlisle said Thursday.
The “capabilities of some potential adversaries has grown pretty rapidly” and is a “huge challenge … especially when you get out to 2020-2025,” Carlisle told reporters at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando.
“Instead of just talking ‘F-X,’” or starting yet another analysis of alternatives, Carlisle said USAF is going back to “capability developmental planning,” something the service “kind of got out of” with the demise of Air Force Systems Command.
The first capability collaboration team, or CCT, that will explore “cross-spectrum, cross-domain” approaches to defeating future threats “is going to be Air Superiority 2030,” Carlisle reported.
A sixth-generation fighter “will be part of that discussion,” as will “multi-domain access.”
The review will include cyber, stealth, lasers, high-powered microwaves, and new weapons; especially longer-ranged missiles with the ability to function in heavy electronic warfare conditions.
“Air dominance in that timeframe may not solely be an aircraft. It’s a family of systems,” Carlisle said.

Fonte ..... il 'Daily report' dell' AFA .....

AW&ST ..... "ACC Chief: Stealth ‘Incredibly Important’ For Next USAF Fighter" .....
http://aviationweek.com/defense/acc-chi ... af-fighter
.

[richelieu]

Il capo della divisione 'Skunk Works' di LM risponde all'ammiraglio Greenert .....

"Lockheed Martin Skunk Works Chief: U.S. Next Generation Fighters Need Stealth" .....
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/18/lockhee ... ed-stealth

[richelieu]

L' USAF pianifica .....

The US Air Force is about to start a deep-dive process that will eventually decide what technologies and capabilities it will fund to ensure air dominance in the world of 2030.
And while that includes the potential for a sixth-generation fighter, top service officials continue to stress that the result of the process will likely be a family of systems approach.

Fonte ..... "Planning Begins for USAF Next-Gen Air Dominance" .....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /24393673/
.

[richelieu]

Verso una collaborazione Navy/Air Force..... ma soltanto a livello di 'analisi congiunta delle alternative' ..... almeno per ora .....

The Navy and the Air Force could team up for their early look into their next crop of fighters due out in 2030, the Navy’s director of air warfare told USNI News on Thursday.
Starting next year, the two services are in a position to set out on a joint analysis of alternatives (AoA) for the follow on to Navy’s Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Air Force’s Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air superiority fighter, said Rear Adm. Mike Manazir to USNI News following a House Armed Service Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces hearing on combat aviation.

Fonte ..... "Navy and Air Force Planning Joint Exploration of Next Generation Fighter Follow Ons to F-22 and F/A-18E/F" ..... http://news.usni.org/2015/03/27/navy-an ... -and-fa-18
.

[richelieu]

"Lo 'stealth' non è finito nel dimenticatoio" .....
..... con queste parole il CSM USAF contesta le recenti affermazioni rilasciate dal CNO (Capo delle Operazioni Navali) US Navy ..... http://news.usni.org/2015/02/04/cno-gre ... high-speed ..... sul fatto che tale funzione non sarebbe più strettamente necessaria nei velivoli della prossima generazione .....

It’s Still All About the Stealth .....

John A. Tirpak (4/9/2015)

Despite comments from naval aviation leaders in recent months that stealth has become irrelevant, it remains the key ingredient in new combat aircraft design, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Wednesday.
“Stealth has not gone by the wayside. The idea that stealth is somehow dead is just wrong,” he told defense reporters at a Washington, D.C., breakfast.
While he allowed that an enemy may be able to develop a radar that could detect a stealth aircraft at long-range, “stealth is about breaking kill chains.”
While an acquisition radar “may be able to see you ... when they try to transition that track to a tracking radar, it fades and they can’t actually do any targeting, or they launch a weapon and somewhere during the weapon flight [it] ... loses track, because of some aspect of your stealth characteristics,” he said.
“As long as we have that capability, stealth is a good thing. And, we’ll continue to develop it.”
Welsh added that, “The good news is, we’re getting much better at this. We understand the technology better, ... how the pieces of stealth interact, ... how it affects threat systems, ... our own systems, ... how to communicate better, ... operate better, and maintain stealth, and ... deliver weapons ... All that stuff is getting better and better and better.”
Moreover, there is “no comparison between the stealth capabilities of the F-35 and … the F-117.”
The difference is like “night and day. It’s a new world. And that will continue.”

Fonte ..... il 'Daily Report' dell' AFA .....
.