6th Gen Fighter Aircraft... what do you imagine they are like?

[abudabit]

Everyone loves fighter jets. What will the 6th gen (the one after the one being introduced now) be like? What cool features will they have?

[Sct Ptersns Twn]

Everyone loves fighter jets. What will the 6th gen (the one after the one being introduced now) be like? What cool features will they have?

A china man piloting it.

[AngryPest]

It'll drop golfers into the enemies workforce.

[VMS]

Not voting on any of the choices. I just don't know.

So much of this depends on technology progressing in various fields where there's no way to tell where they're going to end up.

With lasers/directed energy weapons, it's a question of whether technology will both allow small enough installations to fit onto a fighter jet AND whether a compact power source will fit onto a fighter jet. The Zumwalt naval solution for rail guns (engine powers batteries, batteries power props or powers rail gun while props are feathered) isn't an option for a fighter jet.

With stealth, the only real boost over current passive stealth I can see happening is active stealth (see Stephen Coonts' "The Minotaur", among other fiction books). I mean, once you've got a bomber down to the size of an insect, what the fuck are you going to do from there? I still say defeating stealth should mostly be a software issue: stop the computer from "gating out" bird-sized objects and just filter out bird sized objects that are going slower than 200 mph (or whatever). Kills your range, of course, but you can still "see" stealthed objects that way within your new range.

Unmanned fighters are more of a political/philosophical thing than anything else. I can see there being some unmanned fighters, but with a manned "wolfpack" leader. Eventually, I can see completely unmanned fighters being directed from an AWACS, and then eventually completely autonomous unmanned fighters, but that's a while away IMO, even if the AI makes it possible right now.

Low Earth Orbit stuff sounds great, but we're also talking about fighter jets. I can see strategic bombers having to go LEO, but fighters are typically short legged. LEO for them only makes sense to get away from an opponent, and that's doesn't fit the "Orbit" part of the equation. I can see very, very, very high altitude fighters in the 6th gen (if that's what you really meant), but that'd require some fuel/engine changes.

Fuel efficiency? Eh. The fuel efficiency for fighters is more about them being able to go faster for a longer time than going for a longer distance. Not the same kind of fuel efficiency you worry about with your commuter car, more the fuel efficiency a NASCAR team worries about. It's important, but that's what they have KC-10s for, right?

I don't think VTOL necessarily makes sense for full-on fleet use, unless there's a new engine/fuel concept (ie- rocket powered planes) that fits in well with them.

We're barely getting a handle on the 5th gen fighters right now, but the possibilities for the 6th gen technology are very, very interesting, I grant you.

[abudabit]

Unmanned is the best way to outmaneuver missiles, you can't pull manuevers quickly enough when you have to worry about g-force killing the pilot.

[Budyzir]

The Joint Strike Fighter is the last manned strike fighter that will be produced. Based on the success of the current drone AC, the next gen fighter will be unmanned and have improved stealth characteristics. The size will depend on mission duration (for fuel considerations) and payload.

Think about it, an unmanned strike fighter loitering over a war zone for a couple of days before flying out for in flight refueling and then returning. Based on a varied payload it can execute missions from ground support to tactical strikes. All this while the pilots, back in the US, rotate through four hour shifts.

Pretty interesting stuff to think about.

[VMS]

Unmanned is the best way to outmaneuver missiles, you can't pull manuevers quickly enough when you have to worry about g-force killing the pilot.

Fuck that. I mean, yeah, you push the button to send the UAV into evasive maneuvers, but if it goes down it goes down. You're not losing a pilot, which is the real deal.

Our cruise missiles already cost a few million each. Losing a $200 million fighter isn't a good thing, but it doesn't reach the American public the way losing a pilot would.

I just don't know if all of the good, logical reasons to go with UAVs will make it past the Air Force and the Navy's "fighter mafia". At least as of a few years ago, even all the armed Predator drones were CIA, not Air Force, because the Air Force didn't want weapons on unmanned vehicles. That might have changed since then (?), but it used to be that you could always tell when a Predator was CIA or not by the presence of Hellfires on the wings.

You rise up in the Air Force through stick time in a fast mover. It's all about pretty planes that go fast, which is why the A-10 was both figurative and literally the ugly duckling in the Air Force.

UAVs are the way to go, I agree. I just don't know if they can be successfully pushed down the Air Force's throat.

[abudabit]

There's no button pushing to evade. It would happen automatically. For the cost of a little extra jet fuel you save a $200 million aircraft and the sortie, don't you see the value in that?

Also you can reduce the drag coefficient with out a canopy. And you can reduce the number of practice runs needed. Both of which are huge when you consider how much money goes into flying jets.

What you are left with are jets that can out maneuver manned jets, have a higher top speed, longer range, and cost a lot less to fly. And of course nobody dies if they they get hit. Unmanned is the future.

[VMS]

There's no button pushing to evade. It would happen automatically. For the cost of a little extra jet fuel you save a $200 million aircraft and the sortie, don't you see the value in that?

Also you can reduce the drag coefficient with out a canopy. And you can reduce the number of practice runs needed. Both of which are huge when you consider how much money goes into flying jets.

What you are left with are jets that can out maneuver manned jets, have a higher top speed, longer range, and cost a lot less to fly. And of course nobody dies if they they get hit. Unmanned is the future.

I see the value in saving the cost of the jet, of course. But the MOST important thing in getting the pilot out of the plane is to keep the pilot from dying in the fight. Seriously, if we replaced all our troops in Iraq with robots, who would really give a flying fuck about the War?

IF UAVs are the 6th gen fighters, I see the first few marks as being glorified RC planes. Sorry, but there's no way the Air Force will jump into the pool with both feet on this one. They'll dangle their toes in the water, demand that all the UAVs be controlled by Red Flag grads on board AWACS, etc. etc.

Technologically and logically speaking, you are absolutely positively correct. Now let's descend into the Real World where all the Air Force generals who have a HUGE part of the decision on how fighters are designed all used to be fighter jocks themselves and take a HUGE amount of pride in being fighter jocks. As in, they still like to get into the cockpit and fly around for a while for that extra couple of thousand a month they get for being "active pilots". Where, even without the money, they still love getting into a motherfucking honest-to-Betsy fighter with guns and bombs and missiles.

Shit, my cousin's husband is working on the AI for the Navy's autonomous sub program. I'd LOVE for UAVs and UABs to become the next generation of war machines! I just don't see it happening without a lot of resistance from the people in charge of the armed services...

[Motor Head]

And then Skynet becomes self aware, gets the missle codes and launches....and we have to start dealing with these douches.
http://www.filmbuffonline.com/uploaded_images/Terminator4-737671.bmp