The Sixth

Generation Fighter
By John A. Tirpak, Executive Editor

F-80

F-4

Illustrations not to scale

ithin the next few years,

we will begin work on
the sixth generation
[fighter] capabilities
necessary for future air
dominance. The Secretary of the Air
Force, Michael B. Donley, and the
USAF Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton A.
Schwartz, issued that statement in an
April 13 Washington Post article.
The Air Force may have to move a
little faster to develop that next generation fighter. While anticipated F-22 and
F-35 inventories seem settled, there
wont be enough to fix shortfalls in the
fighter fleet over the next 20 years, as
38

F-86D
legacy fighters retire faster than fifth
generation replacements appear.
The Air Force will have to answer a
host of tough questions about the nature
of the next fighter.
Should it provide a true quantum
leap in capability, from fifth to sixth
generation, or will some interim level of
technology suffice? When will it have
to appear? What kinds of fighters will
potential adversaries be fielding in the
next 20 years? And, if the program is
delayed, will a defense industry with
nothing to work on in the meantime
lose its know-how to deliver the needed
system?

What seems certain is that more is

riding on the Air Forces answers than
just replacing worn-out combat aircraft.
Initial concept studies for what would
become the F-22 began in the early
1980s, when production of the F-15 was
just hitting its stride. It took 20 years to go
from those concepts to initial operational
capability. Industry leaders believe that
it will probably take another 20 years to
field a next generation fighter.
That may be late to need. By 2030,
according to internal USAF analyses,
the service could be as many as 971
aircraft short of its minimum required
inventory of 2,250 fighters. That asAIR FORCE Magazine / October 2009

sumes that all planned F-35s are built

and delivered on time and at a rate of
at least 48 per year. The shortfall is
due to the mandatory retirement of F15s and F-16s that will have exceeded
their service lives and may no longer
be safe to fly.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates
has set the tone for the tactical aviation
debate. He opposed the F-22 as being
an expensive, exquisite solution to air
combat requirements, and has put emphasis on the less costly F-35 Lightning
II instead. He considers it exemplary of
the kind of multirole platforms, applicable to a wide variety of uses, that he

or outclassed by generation four-plusplus fighters, if Russia and China build

their fifth generation fighters in large
numbers, the US would be at a clear
airpower disadvantage in the middle of
the 2020s. Thats a distinct possibility, as
both countries have openly stated their
intentions to build world-class air fleets.
If they do, the 75 percent solution fails.
What You See Is What You Get
The Air Force declined to offer official comment on the status of its sixth
generation fighter efforts. Privately,
senior leaders have said they have been
waiting to see how the F-22 and F-35

cret, better fighter is nearly ready to be

deployed. He said, What you see is
what you get.
That opinion was borne out in interviews with the top aeronautic technologists of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and
Northrop Grumman, the three largest
remaining US airframers. They said
they were unaware of an official, dedicated Air Force sixth generation fighter
program and are anxiously waiting to
see what capabilities the service wants
in such a fighter.
The possibilities for a sixth generation
fighter seem almost the stuff of science
fiction.
From left to right, USAF fighter generations one through five, plus a placeholder for generation six.

F-22

F-15
Illustrations by Zaur Eylanbekov

The technologies are emerging, but whats needed is a

program to pull them together.
believes the US military should be buying
in coming years. He and his technology
managers have described this approach
as the 75 percent solution.
Gates has also forecast that a Russian fifth generation fighter will be
operational in 2016Russia says it will
fly the fighter this yearand a Chinese
version just four years later. Given that
US legacy fighters are already matched
AIR FORCE Magazine / October 2009

issues sorted out before establishing a

structured program for a next generation fighter.
The Air Force has a large classified
budget, but it seems there is no black
sixth generation fighter program waiting
in the wings. A senior industry official,
with long-term, intimate knowledge of
classified efforts, said the F-22 wasnt
stopped at 187 aircraft because a se-

It would likely be far stealthier than

even the fifth generation aircraft. It may
be able to change its shape in flight,
morphing to optimize for either
speed or persistence, and its engines
will likely be retunable in-flight for
efficient supersonic cruise or subsonic
loitering.
The sixth generation fighter will
likely have directed energy weapons
39

Fighter Generations
The definition of fighter generations has long been subject to debate. However, most agree that the generations break down along these broad lines:
Generation 1: Jet propulsion (F-80, German Me 262).
Generation 2: Swept wings; range-only radar; infrared missiles (F-86, MiG-15).
Generation 3: Supersonic speed; pulse radar; able to shoot at targets beyond
visual range (Century Series fighters such as F-105; F-4; MiG-17; MiG-21).
Generation 4: Pulse-doppler radar; high maneuverability; look-down, shootdown missiles (F-15, F-16, Mirage 2000, MiG-29).
Generation 4+: High agility; sensor fusion; reduced signatures (Eurofighter
Typhoon, Su-30, advanced versions of F-16 and F/A-18, Rafale).
Generation 4++: Active electronically scanned arrays; continued reduced
signatures or some active (waveform canceling) stealth; some supercruise
(Su-35, F-15SE).
Generation 5: All-aspect stealth with internal weapons, extreme agility,
full-sensor fusion, integrated avionics, some or full supercruise (F-22, F-35).
Potential Generation 6: extreme stealth; efficient in all flight regimes
(subsonic to multi-Mach); possible morphing capability; smart skins;
highly networked; extremely sensitive sensors; optionally manned; directed
energy weapons.

radar as it is known today. It would be

equipped for making cyber attacks as
well as achieving kinetic effects, but
would still have to be cost-effective to
make, service, and modify.
Moreover, the rapid advancement of
unmanned aircraft technologies could,
in 20 years or so, make feasible production of an autonomous robotic fighter.
However, that is considered less likely
than the emergence of an uninhabited

Northrop Grumman illustration

high-powered microwaves and lasers

for defense against incoming missiles
or as offensive weapons themselves.
Munitions would likely be of the dial
an effect type, able to cause anything
from impairment to destruction of an
air or ground target.
Materials and microelectronics technologies would combine to make the
aircraft a large integrated sensor, possibly eliminating the need for a nose

A Northrop Grumman artists conception of a sixth generation fighter employing

directed energy weapons and stealthy data networking.
40

but remotely piloted aircraft with an

off-board crew, possibly comprising
many operators.
Not clear, yet, is whether the mission
should be fulfilled by a single, multirole
platform or a series of smaller, specialized aircraft, working in concert.
I think this next round [of fighter
development] is probably going to be
dominated by ever-increasing amounts
of command and control information,
said Paul K. Meyer, vice president and
general manager of Northrop Grummans Advanced Programs and Technology Division.
Meyer forecast that vast amounts of
data will be available to the pilot, who
may or may not be on board the aircraft.
The pilot will see wide-ranging, intuitive
views of the extended world around
the aircraft, he noted. The aircraft will
collect its own data and seamlessly fuse
it with off-board sensors, including
those on other aircraft. The difference
from fifth generation will be the level
of detail and certaintythe long-sought
automatic target recognition.
Directed Energy Weapons
Embedded sensors and microelectronics will also make possible sensor
arrays in locations that previously
werent available because of either
heat or the curvature of the surface,
providing more powerful and comprehensive views of the battlefield,
Meyer noted. Although the aircraft
probably wont be autonomous, he
said, it will be able to learn and
advise the pilot as to what actions to
takespecifically, whether a target
should be incapacitated temporarily,
damaged, or destroyed.
Traditional electronics will probably
give way to photonics, said Darryl W.
Davis, president of Boeings advanced
systems division.
You could have fewer wires, said
Davis. Youre on a multiplexed,
fiber-optic bus ... that connects all the
systems, and because you can do things
at different wavelengths of light, you
can move lots of data around airplanes
much faster, with much less weight in
terms of ... wire bundles.
Fiber optics would also be resistant
to jamming or spoofing of data and
less prone to cyber attack.
A digital wingman could accompany the main fighter as an extra
sensor-shooter smart enough to take
verbal instructions, Meyer forecasted.
Directed energy weapons could
play a big role in deciding how agile
AIR FORCE Magazine / October 2009

Technology Readiness Levels

Pentagon leaders now seek to reduce weapon risks and costs by deferring
production until technologies are mature. Pentagon technology readiness
levelsTRLsare defined as follows:
TRL 1: Basic principles observed and reported. Earliest transition from
basic scientific research to applied research and development. Paper studies
of a technologys basic properties.
TRL 2: Invention begins; practical applications developed. No proof or
detailed analysis yet.
TRL 3: Active R&D begins. Analytical and lab studies to validate predictions. Components not yet integrated.
TRL 4: Basic elements are shown to work together in a breadboard, or
lab setting.
TRL 5: Fidelity of demonstrations rises. Basic pieces are integrated in a
somewhat realistic way. Can be tested in a simulated environment.
TRL 6: Representative model or prototype. A major step up in readiness
for use. Possible field tests.
TRL 7: Prototype of system in operational environment is demonstrated
test bed aircraft, for example.
TRL 8: Final form of the technology is proved to work. Usually the end of
system development. Weapon is tested in its final form.
TRL 9: Field use of the technology in its final form, under realistic conditions.

AIR FORCE Magazine / October 2009

such an approach would probably be

incompatible with a loitering capability.
Davis said he thinks hypersonics
will start to show up in sixth generation, but not initially as the platforms
power plant, but rather in the aircrafts
kinetic munitions.
I think it will start with applications
to weapons, Davis said. And they may
not necessarily be just weapons but
high-speed reconnaissance platforms
for short missions on the way to the
target.
Because of the extreme speed of
hypersonic platforms and especially
directed energy weapons, Davis thinks it
USAF photo

a sixth generation fighter would have

to be, Meyer noted. Speed of light
weapons, he added, could negate the
importance of the maneuverability we
see in todays fashionable fighters.
There wont be time to maneuver away
from a directed energy attack.
Pulse weapons could also fry an enemy aircrafts systemsor those of a
ground target. Based on what we have
seen and we make at Northrop Grumman, Meyer said, in the next 20 years
... that type of technology is going to
be available.
With an appropriate enginepossibly an auxiliary engineon board
to provide power for directed energy
weapons, there could be an unlimited
magazine of shots, Meyer said.
Hypersonicsthat is, the ability of
an air vehicle to travel at five times the
speed of sound, or fasterhas routinely
been suggested as an attribute of sixth
generation fighters, but the industry
leaders are skeptical the capability will
be ready in time.
While there have been some successes
with experimental hypersonic propulsion, the total amount of true hypersonic
flying time is less than 15 minutes, and
the leap to an operational fighter in 20
years might be a leap too far.
It entails a whole new range of materials development, due to ... sensors,
fuzes, apertures, etc., Meyer noted, all
of which must operate in that intense
heat environment at ... Mach 5-plus.
Still, it is indeed an option that we
would consider because targets will
be fleeting and require quick, surgical
strikes at great distances. However,

will be critical to have persistent eyes on

target because speed-of-light weapons
cant be recalled once youve pulled the
trigger, and even at hypersonic speed,
a target may move before the weapon
arrives. That would suggest a flotilla of
stealthy drones or sensors positioned
around the battlefield.
Not only will hypersonics require
years more work, Davis said it must be
combined with other, variable-cycle
engines that will allow an aircraft to
take off from sea level, climb to high
altitude, and then engage a hypersonic
engine. Those enabling propulsion elements are not necessarily near at hand
in a single package.
The sixth generation fighter, whatever
it turns out to be, will still be a machine
and will need to be serviced, repaired,
and modified, according to Neil Kacena,
deputy director of Lockheed Martins
Skunk Works advanced projects division.
He is less confident that major systems
such as radar will be embedded in the
aircraft skin.
If the radar doesnt work, and now
you have to take the wing off, ... then
that may not be the technology that will
find its way onto a sixth gen aircraft,
he said. In designing the next fighter,
life cycle costs will be crucial, and so
practical considerations will have to be
accommodated.
Toward that end, he said, Lockheed
Martin is working on new composite
manufacturing techniques that use far
fewer fasteners, less costly tooling, and
therefore lower start-up and sustainment

F-22 Raptors on a training mission soar over the mountains near Elmendorf AFB,
Alaska. The fifth generation fighter features all-aspect stealth and full-sensor fusion.
41

Boeing illustration

In Boeings conception, traditional electronics give way to photonics, reducing

weight and increasing processing speed.

costs. It demonstrated those technologies

recently on the Advanced Composite
Cargo Aircraft program.
Given the anticipated capabilities of
the Russian and Chinese fifth generation
fighters, when will a sixth generation
aircraft have to be available?
Davis said the Air Force and Navy, not
industry, will have to decide how soon
they need a new generation of fighters.
However, if the services are thinking
they need something in 2020 when
foreign fifth generation fighters could
be proliferating in large numbers, were
going to have to do some things to our
existing generation of platforms, such
as add the directed energy weapons or
other enhancements.
Kacena agreed, saying that Lockheed Martin has engaged with both
services and supplied them data and
our perspectives about the next round
of fighter development. If the need exists to make a true quantum leap, then
sixth generation is the way to go, but,
if its driven by the reduction in force
structure [and] ... the equipment is just
getting old and worn out in that time
frame, then [we] may very well be on
a path of continuous improvement of
fifth generation capabilities. Lockheed
Martin makes both the F-22 and F-35.
He said the companys goal is to find
the knee in the curve where you get them
the most bang for the buck without an 80
to 90 percent solution. Something that
doesnt take them beyond the nonlinear
increase in cost.
Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, the Air
Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance and
a fighter pilot, said the next fighter
generation may well have characteristics
fundamentally different from any seen
today, but he urged defense decisionmakers to keep an open mind and not
ignore hard-learned lessons from history.
42

Although great strides have been made

in unmanned aircraft, said Deptula,
we have a long way to go to achieve
the degree of 360-degree spherical
situation awareness, rapid assimilation
of information, and translation of that
information into action that the human
brain, linked with its on-site sensors,
can accomplish.
Numbers Count, Too
Despite rapid increases in computer
processing power, it will be difficult for a
machine to cope with an infinite number
of potential situations that are occurring
in split seconds, Deptula added, noting
that, until such a capability is proved,
we will still require manned aircraft.
Its important to note that Americas
potential adversaries will have access
to nearly all the technologies now only
resident with US forces, Deptula said.
Thinking 20 to 30 years out, it will be
necessary to invest properly to retain
things US forces depend on, such as
air superiority.
However, he warned not to put too
much emphasis on technology, per se.
Just as precision air weapons and, to
a certain degree, cyberspace are redefining our definition of mass in todays
fight, we have to be very wary of how
quickly mass in its classic sense can
return in an era of mass-precision and
mass-cyber capabilities for all.
In other words, numbers count, and too
few fighters, even if they are extremely
advanced, are still too few.
Hanging over the sixth generation
fighter debate is this stark fact: The relevant program should now be well under
way, but it has not even been defined. If
the Pentagon wants a sixth generation
capability, it will have to demonstrate
that intent, and soon. Industry needs
that clear signal if it is to invest its own
money in developing the technologies

needed to make the sixth generation

fighter come about.
Moreover, the sixth generation program is necessary to keep the US aerospace industry on the cutting edge. Unless it is challenged, if the 90 percent
solution is needed in the future, industry
may not be able to answer the call.
Under Gates, Pentagon technology
leaders have said they want to avoid
cost and schedule problems by deferring development until technologies are
more mature. Unfortunately, this safe
and steady approach does not stimulate
leap-ahead technologies.
Meyer said, We need to have challenges to our innovative thoughts, our
engineering talents, our technology
integration and development that would
... push us ... to the point where industry
has to perform beyond expectations.
He noted that todays F-35 is predicated on largely proven technologies
and affordability, but it was the B-2
and F-22 programs that really paved
the way for the systems that underpin
modern air combat.
The B-2 bomber, he noted, was a program of significant discovery, because
it involved a great deal of invention to
meet required performance. The B-2
demanded taking ... basic research and
developing it in the early ... phases of
the program, which yielded nonfaceted
stealth, enhanced range and payload,
nuclear hardening, new antennas, radars,
and flight controls.
Today, Meyer said, most programs
are entering full-scale development
only when theyve reached a technology readiness level of six or higher
(see chart).
We probably had elements on the
B-2 ... that were at four, and a lot at
five, Meyer said.
Programs such as the sixth generation
fighter are the ones we relish because
they make us think, they make us take
risks that we wouldnt normally take,
and in taking on those risks weve discovered the new technologies that have
made our industry great, he asserted.
Davis said that other countries are going to school on the US fighter industry
and taking its lessons to heart.
We still think you have to build
thingsfly them and test themin
order to know what works and what
doesnt, said Davis. And, at some
point, if you dont do that, just do it
theoretically, it doesnt get you where
you need to be.
He added, If we dont continue to
move forward, they will catch us. n
AIR FORCE Magazine / October 2009