At the same time, he added, what trade-offs would the operators be willing to accept to incorporate some of those elements?
“If you look at the history of tactical fighter aircraft, range really hasn’t varied all that much – mostly a combat radius of 500 to 800 miles – not 2,000. So it would be great to say a combat radius of 800 to 1,000 nautical miles [nm], but it really won’t make that much of a difference,” he said. “You have to question whether we have to go back to the days of the bigger planes – such as the F-111, which was hinted at about the new regional bomber – or an F-22B or something. And maybe that’s the answer – a Gen-6 is more an F-111 with 1,500- to 2,000-nm range, but you would lose on stealth and other capabilities. On the other hand, if you are dependent on sensors and long-range weapons and such, it makes some sense.
The Boeing F/A-XX shown in this rendering is a proposed Generation 6 air superiority fighter designed to replace the F/A-18 Super Hornet for the U.S. Navy The F/A-XX would incorporate stealth capability and other features that are considered vital in future Gen-6 aircraft. Image courtesy of Boeing Company
“Actually, a Gen-6 doesn’t require full stealth, just low observability and making your sensors as passive as possible, giving the pilot as many options as possible for target tracking without using active beams, whether that is offboard sensing or some form of distributed aperture, but being able to track and destroy a target without emitting.”
Another common thread running through discussions of Gen-6 is whether it should have an on-board pilot; indeed, some have predicted the F-35 will be the last manned fighter built by the United States. Aboulafia disagrees – on that, on it being carrier-capable, and whether it should be STOVL, another frequent prediction for all future military aircraft.
“I think a Gen-6 will still be designed around a pilot, perhaps with an optional capability. It doesn’t cost that much to put a pilot in the cockpit and it gives you tremendous advantages. It also certainly will be land-based, because of increased carrier vulnerability. And a 2,000-nm plane won’t be a carrier plane any more than the F-111 was – and God knows they tried. Of course, if it is the size of an F-35, you could do both land- and sea-based, but if it really is a theater asset, it will be land-based,” he predicted. As for STOVL …
“No. Please, no. There are three ways to make STOVL happen. Two have been tried – the independent turbine, which didn’t work out, and ducted air, which worked great on the [AV-8B] Harrier, but not if you want to go supersonic. Then there is the F-35B approach, which involves an awful lot of design compromise, including substantial range and payload trade-off, which most people won’t make. The Marines will because that is how they fight a war – but that’s just the Marines. And if it is a bigger plane, forget about it.”
While the actual missions – even the size, range, and speed – that would define a Gen-6 aircraft remain the subjects of considerable debate, a few things do seem to be commonly accepted: greatly enhanced radars and self-protection, fly-by-light avionics, directed-energy weapons, revolutionary sensors with full fusion to prioritize threats and give the pilot just the information needed – when and how needed – to concentrate on fighting and surviving, which also means a far greater level of autonomy than any current aircraft.
In the end, a true Gen-6 aircraft may be platform agnostic – not a new generation of airframe, but of the component technologies that aircraft carries.
“It won’t be about the aircraft, but about all the building blocks. Whether it’s displays, electronic warfare, propulsion, sensors, munitions, datalinks – that’s where you will see the evolution. It also goes back to range and whether Gen-6 is more of a theater-ranged asset than a traditional tactical platform. Looking at emerging requirements, it comes down to the Pacific, which draws you to a bigger and more capable aircraft,” Aboulafia concluded.
“The airframers are kicking in less and less of their own cash – except when it comes to export competition. The people doing the real heavy lifting are the subsystem companies – and that is where DoD money is going. So the key question is whether these components and capabilities can be inserted into current aircraft or if it will take a new plane to package and integrate them.”
This article was first published in Defense: Review Edition 2011/2012.