If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

[Skipjack]

Luzr, I agree on that one too, of course. For now, I will be happy to see the UAVs equal manned fighters in maneuverability. Current UAVs are still slower and less maneuverable. I am absolutely convinced though, that this problem will be a thing of the past soon. In any case, UAVs are more stealthy since they do not have a cockpit and they can be built smaller (or carry more weaponry/sensors).
One must not forget that combat UAVs are only at the beginning of their evolution. High performance fighter planes are pretty much at the end of what can be achieved and the more additional performance you want to press out of them, the more expensive future development will be and the slower the progress. UAVs are closer to the beginning and progress and performance improvements will be much quicker.

[DeltaV]

Well, the US, who also do a lot about AI and robotics AND UAVs have decided that the next fighter will have a manned and an unmanned version.
This is, from what I understand already a set decision.

You are wrong. No such decision has been made. A decision was made that the next-generation bomber will be "optionally manned". You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between a ground attack aircraft and an air-superiority fighter.

The japanese do not value the lives of their pilots as highly as the US does (as we learned in WW2).

Oh right, they'll have so many trained fighter pilots that they'll be inclined to use their multimillion dollar stealth fighters as Kamikaze weapons. Hogwash. In WW2 that was a last resort against overwhelming forces.

Austria is actually doing quite important development and research into AI and robotics. Several world leading robotics companies are located in Austria. But of course you dont know that.

I know that. I also know that if they had a dogfight-winning UCAV "brain" it would be all over the news.

[DeltaV]

Current UAVs are still slower and less maneuverable. I am absolutely convinced though, that this problem will be a thing of the past soon.

Yes, UCAVs will eventually pull more g's. Won't make any difference once speed-of-light DEWs are onboard the larger manned fighters, which have a greater volume for DEW power supplies and a larger surface area for more sensitive distributed-aperture sensors.

In any case, UAVs are more stealthy since they do not have a cockpit and they can be built smaller (or carry more weaponry/sensors).

You make the common mistake of assuming that RF stealth is related to overall size. Read the book "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich/Leo Janos. A given shape gives the same RCS over a wide range of vehicle sizes.

Metamaterials will solve the cockpit stealth problem (may already have). Smaller UCAVs will require smaller weapon loads, less fuel/range and sensor arrays having a smaller interferometric baseline and thus lower target/threat detection sensitivity.

[Skipjack]

Metamaterials will solve the cockpit stealth problem (may already have).

I think that the UAVs are waaay nearer than the meta materials..

[Luzr]

Current UAVs are still slower and less maneuverable. I am absolutely convinced though, that this problem will be a thing of the past soon.

Yes, UCAVs will eventually pull more g's. Won't make any difference once speed-of-light DEWs are onboard the larger manned fighters, which have a greater volume for DEW power supplies and a larger surface area for more sensitive distributed-aperture sensors.

Is the pilot needed to have greater volume for power supplies? (Or he just occupies some volume that could otherwise be used for them?

[DeltaV]

Metamaterials for the radome.
The canopy uses something simpler:
Japan Keeps Pilot In Sixth-Gen Concept (page 2)

The institute is also looking at shielding the cockpit from radar waves by applying to the canopy a material that is already used in commercial plasma video screens. On video screens, the material lets through the light of the picture while blocking ­harmful ­radiation of lower frequencies. On a canopy, it would be optically transparent for the pilot’s vision while blocking radar waves that might otherwise enter and reflect from the cockpit.

Metamaterials, which have artificial structures that channel electromagnetic energy, would be applied to the radome in two ways to prevent reflections from inside. They would make it transparent only at the operating frequencies of the fighter’s own radar, and make it completely opaque from angles that the radar does not use.

[DeltaV]

Is the pilot needed to have greater volume for power supplies? (Or he just occupies some volume that could otherwise be used for them? :)

For a hypothetical F-22 successor, going against both manned and unmanned opponents, the pilot makes executive decisions which the automated inner loop doesn't have a clue about. Since he's in a bigger vehicle, an advantage in a DEW-prevalent fight, the extra space he requires is not that big of a penalty. If power for the DEWs is depleted he might also get to dogfight...

viewtopic.php?p=34763&highlight=&sid=4e ... 26dc#34763

[Skipjack]

You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between a ground attack aircraft and an air-superiority fighter.

DeltaV if you got your head out of your ass at least once in a while, then you would actually do your homework instead of accusing me of not knowing the difference between a bomber and a fighter, which is a ridiculous assumption only meant to aggravate me.
Anyway, here is an article about it. Ok, maybe the decision has not been set into stone yet, but the airforce does seem pretty serious about this:

http://gizmodo.com/#!5683138/air-force- ... n-fighters

http://www.mobile-computing-news.co.uk/ ... ology.html

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 6-2009.asp

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07 ... ne-future/

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArti ... xpressions

[MSimon]

Metamaterials for the radome.
The canopy uses something simpler:
Japan Keeps Pilot In Sixth-Gen Concept (page 2)

The institute is also looking at shielding the cockpit from radar waves by applying to the canopy a material that is already used in commercial plasma video screens. On video screens, the material lets through the light of the picture while blocking ­harmful ­radiation of lower frequencies. On a canopy, it would be optically transparent for the pilot’s vision while blocking radar waves that might otherwise enter and reflect from the cockpit.

Metamaterials, which have artificial structures that channel electromagnetic energy, would be applied to the radome in two ways to prevent reflections from inside. They would make it transparent only at the operating frequencies of the fighter’s own radar, and make it completely opaque from angles that the radar does not use.

A layer(s) of graphene might do the job nicely.

[Diogenes]

Metamaterials for the radome.
The canopy uses something simpler:
Japan Keeps Pilot In Sixth-Gen Concept (page 2)

The institute is also looking at shielding the cockpit from radar waves by applying to the canopy a material that is already used in commercial plasma video screens. On video screens, the material lets through the light of the picture while blocking ­harmful ­radiation of lower frequencies. On a canopy, it would be optically transparent for the pilot’s vision while blocking radar waves that might otherwise enter and reflect from the cockpit.

Metamaterials, which have artificial structures that channel electromagnetic energy, would be applied to the radome in two ways to prevent reflections from inside. They would make it transparent only at the operating frequencies of the fighter’s own radar, and make it completely opaque from angles that the radar does not use.

A layer(s) of graphene might do the job nicely.

For what it's worth, in the original stealth fighter, the Horten Ho 229, the designer mixed charcoal into the glue in the hope of providing some radar absorbing characteristics.

[DeltaV]

DeltaV if you got your head out of your ass at least once in a while, then you would actually do your homework

You mean like you did when you linked to those authoritative aerospace analysts? For instance, the first article is based on this:
Next Generation Tactical Aircraft (Next Gen TACAIR) Materiel and Technology Concepts Search

CAPABILITY DESCRIPTION: ASC/XRX is conducting market research analyses to examine applicable materiel concepts and related technology for a Next Gen TACAIR capability with an IOC of approximately 2030. The envisioned system may possess enhanced capabilities in areas such as reach, persistence, survivability, net-centricity, situational awareness, human-system integration, and weapons effects. The primary mission in the future Next Gen TACAIR definition is Offensive and Defensive Counterair to include subset missions including Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD), Close Air Support (CAS) and Air Interdiction (AI). It may also fulfill airborne electronic attack and intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance capabilities. This is not an all-inclusive list and the Next Gen TACAIR definition will mature and sharpen as the market research and Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA) unfold. The ongoing CBA is assessing potential capability gaps, while this CRFI will support a concurrent market research assessment. The future system will have to counter adversaries equipped with next generation advanced electronic attack, sophisticated integrated air defense systems, passive detection, integrated self-protection, directed energy weapons, and cyber attack capabilities. It must be able to operate in the anti-access/area-denial environment that will exist in the 2030-2050 timeframe.

Please enlighten us... where does this state that human pilots will not be used for air-to-air combat in the F-22 successor, planned (very tentatively) for 2030?

Oh, by the way, as I've reminded you several times earlier, my concerns about not enough F-22s being produced pertain to the next few decades, not the latter part of this century.

[krenshala]

You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between a ground attack aircraft and an air-superiority fighter.

DeltaV if you got your head out of your ass at least once in a while, then you would actually do your homework instead of accusing me of not knowing the difference between a bomber and a fighter, which is a ridiculous assumption only meant to aggravate me.

You do realize there is a tremendous difference between a bomber, even a light bomber, and a ground attack aircraft, right?

[CharlesKramer]

Fukuyama was right: history is over.

He meant in a post-Soviet world, democratic-free-market societies had won, and the debate about the best form of government was over.

Now -- in a China-ascendant and religion fundamentalist-ascendant world -- I believe he's changed his view.

[Skipjack]

You do realize there is a tremendous difference between a bomber, even a light bomber, and a ground attack aircraft, right?

Your point being?

[DeltaV]

Can the F-35 Win a Dogfight?

In the aftermath of the F-22's cancellation, the Air Force was forced to alter its plans and press-gang the F-35—originally meant as a ground-attack aircraft—into service as an air-to-air fighter. It was the only way for the flying branch to keep enough dogfighters in the air.

“Operationally, we have to have it,” says Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh. “The decision to truncate the F-22 buy has left us in a position where even to provide air superiority [we need the F-35], which was not the original intent of the F-35 development.”

By contrast, there are troubling questions as to how well the F-35 would fare against the new foreign fighters. While the F-35 has air-to-air sensors and can carry air-to-air missiles, it does not have the kinematic performance of the F-22. It’s simply sluggish in comparison.

The Raptor was designed from the outset as an air-to-air killer par excellence—the F-35 was not. The Raptor combines a very stealthy airframe with a high altitude ceiling and supersonic cruise. Further, the F-22 possesses excellent maneuverability for close-in visual-range dogfights.

Combined with the integrated avionics, which correlate all of the aircraft’s sensor data into one coherent display, the F-22's stealth and kinematics make it arguably the most lethal fighter ever built.

The F-35 does have integrated avionics—in some ways more advanced than even the Raptor’s—and it has stealth. But the F-35 lacks aerodynamic performance. U.S. military test pilots say the JSF is similar to the Boeing F/A-18C in speed and maneuverability.