One concept for Gen-6 is to take a page from the Army’s ground vehicles book – build a single, basic, but reconfigurable, airframe and use it for an entire family of aircraft, from fighters to bombers to UCAVs (unmanned combat air vehicles). That, presumably, also would make it easier to create multi-service or even multinational variants.
But no matter how the program may evolve in that regard, two major questions stand out: What constitutes Gen-6 – and how does it differ from Gen-5, in performance and missions?
“The real trend in combat aircraft design is that the aircraft matters less and less, so you could make an argument that a true Gen-6 platform would be one that merely is a host for far more important components and data feeds,” according to Richard Aboulafia, vice president and senior aerospace analyst at The Teal Group. “What truly makes a Gen-5 plane is smart and low-observable integration of the best sensors – on-board and off – best engines, electronic warfare, weapons, and diagnostic systems.
“So a Gen-6 would take that and run with it to the point where the aircraft itself was almost irrelevant. More of the same [as Gen-5], just superb on-board and off-board capabilities, fantastic engines that would allow it to operate efficiently at supercruise and, of course, instant awareness of every threat and friendly asset at a terrific range. And, of course, low observable. But basically, it would be an integration of components and capabilities developed by someone other than the aircraft manufacturer.”
The Sukhoi T-50 appears to be an attempt to blend superior performance a measure of stealth as well as other 5th-generation features. The T-50 and Chinese J-20, should they fulfill their promise and be produced in significant numbers, would be a serious threat to U.S. plans for its future fleet. Photo courtesy of Sukhoi
Lockheed Martin, producer of both the F-22 and F-35 – and the F-117 before them – doesn’t entirely disagree, but has a slightly different take on Gen-6. And, according to Keith Tucker, director of strategic planning at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, to truly be Gen-6 would require a lot more than improved Gen-5 components and capabilities.
“It’s time to start looking at the technologies that will provide the next quantum leap in capabilities for sixth-generation fighters – IOC 2030+ – as Gen-5 did over Gen-4,” he said. “Simply removing the pilot from an aircraft or introducing incremental improvements in signature and range does not constitute a generational leap in capability. Those kinds of improvements are already being looked at for our fifth-generation fighters.
“Next-generation fighter capabilities will be driven by game-changing technological breakthroughs in the areas of propulsion, materials, power generation, sensors, and weapons that are yet to be fully imagined. This will require another significant investment in research and development from a standpoint of both time and money.”
Aboulafia adds one more significant change: mission. The F-22 generally is considered the world’s premier air superiority fighter; the F-35 is less capable in the air superiority mission, but has always been focused on ground attack, as indicated by its original name – Joint Strike Fighter – placing it more in the realm of the F/A-18 Hornet.
For Gen-6, Aboulafia contends, the capabilities of both current Gen-5 aircraft should be merged into something the U.S. fleet currently lacks and has, he believes, largely ignored.