“For the past three decades-plus, we’ve been reflecting and defining the concepts of the tactical fighter and strategic bomber. Why not use Gen-6 capability as an opportunity to do something new? Why not a theater aircraft – neither strategic nor tactical, but a combination of the best of both worlds?” he asked. “The argument against it is ‘we tried it before and it was awful’ – but that was in the 1950s and ’60s, so why not use 21st century advanced technology this time to give Gen-6 the air-to-air combat [capability] of Gen-5, plus strike and range that makes a difference?
“Everyone talks about this being the ‘Pacific Generation’ and Australia-based, but it hasn’t really hit the aircraft designers yet. We now have these fighters and a push for a next-generation long-range strike [NGLRS] bomber, but it’s been a long time since there was anything in the middle. There just hasn’t been a lot of thinking in that direction and maybe there should be, maybe that is where Gen-6 capability could make a real difference. Most of the artists’ concepts I’ve seen basically seem to be reinventing the F-15 or F-22 – and NGLRS is just another bomber. So why not think outside the box and create something that meets changing future needs?”
Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works’ concept for a next-generation tactical fighter. While incorporating stealth features, it also appears to make concessions to outright performance such as a butterfly tail.Lockheed Martin imagery
He said some past efforts in that direction, such as the U.S. F-111 in the 1960s and the Canadian Avro Arrow in the 1950s, failed to meet the grade for a variety of reasons, giving the overall concept a bad name.
“But if you could take sixth-generation capabilities and rejuvenate that concept, you might have something – a true theater asset,” Aboulafia said.
Tucker declined to get into such specifics (it should be noted the nation’s other major military aircraft manufacturers – Boeing and Northrop Grumman – declined to comment at all for this article). He did, however, provide a generic list of factors that could be seen as supporting Aboulafia’s “it’s not the aircraft, it’s the components” argument.
“Sixth-generation aircraft requirements are not set and will depend on assessments of future threats that may emerge in the 2030 time frame,” Tucker said. “Greatly increased speed [Mach 3 supercruise or even hypersonic, according to one company study], longer range; extended loiter times; multi-spectral stealth; ubiquitous situational awareness; and self-healing structures and systems are some of the possible technologies we envision for the next generation of aircraft.”
At the same time, a Lockheed Martin Strategic Studies Group report on “Aerospace & Defense Trends 2010-2040+” also forecasts a number of “quantum leaps in capability” for Gen-5 through 2040, including:
- unmanned variants;
- increased range/payload;
- low observable enhancements;
- net-enabled operations;
- integrated sensor fusion;
- fighter performance; and
- VLO (very low observable) stealth.
Some of the possibilities mentioned by Tucker for Gen-6 don’t really meet any known threats or requirements, according to Aboulafia, “but if you’re going to wait 15 to 20 years to do Gen-6, why not? You’ll have the engines by then, it helps you get in and out and improves your kinetics – the ability to kill stuff – [and] it could be used to justify it as a new aircraft separate from everything else out there. Then add to that better avionics for battle management and control.”