It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Generation Seven Fighterplane?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I am really interested into the weapons and equipments of the future. Since the most advanced air plane right now is at generation 5, what would the future fighter plane be like? Could it go hypersonic? Unmanned? detect enemies from thousands of miles away?
please share on what you know.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Well the current trend is that they're developing both the Raptor and the F-35, which might be the last manned fighter aircraft made by the US. UCAV's are the coming thing. On the bomber front things are a little different, the B-52 is set to soldier on for decades yet, the B-1 will have a short operational life and the B-2 won't be put back into production, just upgraded. There's been talk of an interim bomber which is in the same class as the old F-111 so we'll see how that pans out. Longer term they want a very fast bomber capable of transatmospheric flight. Or at the very least Mach 2 cruise. We'll have to see how the technology matures over the next decade to see whether its feasable to initiate such a complex and costly program.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Do you think the UCAV's will be operable without human controlling? cuz its gonna take a lot of CPU power to be able to do all the things that human pilots need to do. With so much debt USA has will the developement slow down or even be canceled?



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Basically the whole thing hinges on intelligence. Because a man is not directly in the loop, it flies by uploaded GPS waypoints, the weapons themselves are GPS guided.....as such they attack coordinates, whether or not a target is there is up to proper scheduling from ground forces. It also might very well be that it has EO systems so the ground operators can confirm that there are targets at the designated space so not to waste weapons. It's not a complicated technology, just a refinement of drone and UAV systems that have been around for decades now.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I realize that I'm no expert on aircraft, but I would like to offer what I would expect of the future.

If I were an airforce general, I would want an unmanned scramjet bomber designed to drop large quantities of inexpensive (JDAM) ordinance on large targets requiring only marginal accuracy. (air bases, power plants, refineries, large troop positions, etc). It should be able to operate from CONUS and be on target anywhere within a few hours.
I would want a low-altitude derivative of the same weapon designed to deliver and release a barage of cruise missiles or torpedoes against naval forces anywhere in the world on short notice.
Last but not least, I'd want a scramjet aircraft carrier- capable of flying a large number of UCAVs anywhere in the world and releasing them to the control of controllers on the ground. This would increase the usefulness of rapidly deployable light infantry forces such as the Airborne and MEUs.

For tactical bombing, air defense, recon, etc, UCAVs are the future. There are a million and one uses- most of them served by large numbers of small fast aircraft each carrying a missile or two.
If anti-grav ever comes through our tactical bombers and close air support weapons are going to become something like very fast flying tanks. I dont know if that will ever happen though.

Close air support is another matter though. I expect that the grunts will want a man-portable, easy to assemble, hover-capable drone to be made organic at the platoon and company levels with several armament options. Although the following may not all happen, the grunts will want the following:
1. Capability to lift at least 250 pounds and a cargo-carrying system allowing the drone to move equipment or evacuate casualties.
2. Radio-retransmission to improve communications in bad areas.
3. Laser target designation.
4. Video recording and interface with the video-scopes planned for the OICW.
5. Ability to be fitted with weapons organic to small infantry units, including the following weapons: 1. 5.56 belt-fed (preferably a standard M-249 SAW). 2. 40mm grenade launcher (preferably any Mk-19.) 3. AT-4 or Javelin anti-tank weapon.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
Do you think the UCAV's will be operable without human controlling? cuz its gonna take a lot of CPU power to be able to do all the things that human pilots need to do. With so much debt USA has will the developement slow down or even be canceled?


CPU Power we got, The F-22 has 2 super computers in it.

The Global Hawk can taxi and take off with one click of the mouse go do recon and come back and land with a click off the mouse and taxi back exactly where it left from, then click the mouse and its engine shuts-off.

There is always a ground pilot but he doesn't fly it with a joystick, he simply watches the flight and monitors it from the safety of the ground, while it flies a pre-programmed route done by GPS.


As for the main topic though.

If the F-22 is concidered to be the 5th generation then I believe the 6th generation will come to be at around 2025, and It will be armed with lasers for air to air combat, it will be stealthy and hypersonic using Pulse Detonation Engines, and be unmanned.

The 7th generation fighter we will have a hybrid, it will be a PDE/Scramjet aircraft, capable of mach 15, it will be the generation that the bombing and air combat will be merged into one. It will also be unmanned and controlled by an advanced GPS network, that will have precision targeting ability to with in 4 inches. It will have a EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) weapon capable of being fired at something from over 100 miles away. Predicted year is 2045-2050.

By the 8th generation fighter jets will no longer exist, there will be no need for them. We may have a spacecraft bomber fleet but they will have lasers on board to take out any missile or jet in there path, they would go into LEO and release there bombs on the other side of the planet and land back at the United States with in a couple hours from there takeoff, it would be packed full of sensors so nothing would even come close to touching it, It would not need a radar on there because it would be linked to all of the threat detecting satellites in orbit, so they would act as a WWR (world wide radar). Homeland protection would be done by space based as well as ground based lasers, predicted year is 2070.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   
IMHO its only a matter of time before all military planes are UCAVS. The human body is quite weak compared to machines. Within our life times computers will be approaching human levels of computing power and they wont stop there. Future UCAV reaction times will put human ones to shame. They will be able to take G forces that would kill a human they will not get tired they will not have fear. I think that last human pilot has already been born.

By Gen 7 maybe Gen 6 theres a good chance UCAVs will be hypersonic space planes.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   
generation 6 craft is air/spaceplane
i guess that generation 7 aircraft will be antigravity air/space crafts.

aka Hypersoar or AJAX equipped with systems to shield gravity. since mass of plane would be 0, aircraft will be able to pull enormous acceleration, and enormous speeds... etc.

i think it a bit too early for AI crafts



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by titus
generation 6 craft is air/spaceplane
i guess that generation 7 aircraft will be antigravity air/space crafts.

aka Hypersoar or AJAX equipped with systems to shield gravity. since mass of plane would be 0, aircraft will be able to pull enormous acceleration, and enormous speeds... etc.

i think it a bit too early for AI crafts


I agree that AI is to early, but when we do have it, the only thing i'm against is that a bomb or missile never by fired unless the human operator says so.

and whats the AJAX? And anti-gravity! we dont have anti-gravity tech. No one has any proof that such things are in the governments bag of secrets.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   
When would a Gen 7 plane come into service around say 2050 if Gen 6 will be around 2025. Its estimated the computers will be a million times faster then the human brain by 2050 so I think true AI could be in a Gen 7 plane.

I do think human pilots for UCAVs are the way to go in the near future but AI will be so much better in the long run. I do agree with Murcielago on human checks and balances for AI UCAVs though.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I believe that little/no control UCAVs are coming a lot sooner than some of you think.

Once we've got the appropriate shape-recognition software we can cut these things loose in hostile sectors. You arm it and put it on the runway, and you put it in the computer for the thing to patrol a certain zone and attack a certain shape at the scheduled time.
Your plane launches itself, flys around the zone you designated until it sees the shape you designated (an artillery piece for example) and it launches it's missile, then comes home.

We could probably rig the global hawk to fly wild-weasel missions on its own within weeks if we had to. Just give it a radiation-seeking missile and radar detector, hook that to a switch that will arm and fire the missile when the radar detector goes off.

AI is a long way off, but you don't need AI. You need the plane to go to the place it's told and attack the object its told. Everyone who has seen Terminator, raise your hand.


I disagree with the notion that scramjets will ever be used for tactical bombing or fighter aircraft because until we are able to vary the shape and size of the scramjet we can't get them to work efficiently in widely variable conditions. I believe that atmospheric aircraft, and the scramjet itself may become obsolete before we have the ability to make an adaptable scramjet. The best use of the scramjet with the capabilities we are likely to achieve in the next 50 years is to deliver other ordinance at a fixed altitude, such as my idea for using large scramjet vehicles for delivery of cruise missile barrages, high altitude bombing, or UCAVs.

I believe that the fighter role of the fighter is gone when UCAVs and scramjet bombers rule the skies. Air defense against large numbers of small, agile UCAVs will require a lowcost, high volume of fire system such as Metal Storm to counter.

Tactical bombing missions will belong to UCAVs for a while, however the UCAV may become obsolete with remarkable speed because of GPS jamming/disruption, metalstorm style defensive measures becoming organic to small units as a resonse to UCAVs. We must then consider the possibility of EMP or directed energy weapons being developed for aerial area denial.

Ultimately, I agree that we are moving towards space-based radar and space-based strategic weapons as well as strategic defense (likely based on lasers and directed energy). Both vision and striking power will come almost instantly from space-borne platforms. The problem here is that these could be shot down by ground-based lasers. In the next era, world war would last not hours, but minutes, and in mere minutes years of work and preparation would be undone. As with every technological revolution- the balance between defense and offense is upset and one becomes superior. It will either take a costly war to right the doctrine, or the war will never come and we will never know.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Murcielago:


and whats the AJAX? And anti-gravity! we dont have anti-gravity tech. No one has any proof that such things are in the governments bag of secrets.


Try Project Winterhaven, the government's electrogravitic project from the 50s before it went black. The black triangles which many VERY reliable people have seen at or near USAF bases. Lifters, which any Tom, Dick or Harry can build with the most bog standard of equipment. Boeing's acknowledgement that it is beginning to research antigravity. LOTS of hinting from generals and admirals.

Antigravity is out there.

The Vagabond:


I believe that the fighter role of the fighter is gone when UCAVs and scramjet bombers rule the skies. Air defense against large numbers of small, agile UCAVs will require a lowcost, high volume of fire system such as Metal Storm to counter.


Or a single ground-based laser cannon. The era of the fighter aircraft as the top of the battelfield food chain may be at an end. When you can shoot down aircraft at one per second as soon as they appear in your line of sight, plus any ordnance they may drop, from a heavily armoured position, what use are fighters and bombers? The tank may be the weapon of choice for the 21st century.

The Vagabond:



Ultimately, I agree that we are moving towards space-based radar and space-based strategic weapons as well as strategic defense (likely based on lasers and directed energy). Both vision and striking power will come almost instantly from space-borne platforms. The problem here is that these could be shot down by ground-based lasers. In the next era, world war would last not hours, but minutes, and in mere minutes years of work and preparation would be undone. As with every technological revolution- the balance between defense and offense is upset and one becomes superior. It will either take a costly war to right the doctrine, or the war will never come and we will never know.


Agree with you 100% there... although it could be a long, slow war of attrition. It all depends on how much commanders are willing to risk their strike platforms. The old, slow grinding warfare of WWI and before may return with a vengeance.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by Lampyridae]



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago


CPU Power we got, The F-22 has 2 super computers in it.



This is an oft quoted statistic that is actually meaningless. The F-22 flight avionics system was specced in 1986, based around Intel 286 class processors, with the production model being specced in 1995 based around adapted PentiumPro processors (which were not released commercially until 1996). The system has 32 independant processors, and only 300mb ram.

The comparison between the avionics system and cray supercomputers is based around *really* old supercomputers. The quoted speed of the F-22 flight avionics system is around 9 Billion Operations Per Second. A current bottom of the range Cray supercomputer runs at around 1000 billion operations per second, and they get a LOT faster than that.

A 3.0 GHz Pentium4 Processor, of the same type that goes into standard desktop PCs, can handle 6 billion operations per second (with hyperthreading versions coming in at 9 - 12 billion ops per second). And thats just one chip.

What am I trying to say? Dont take random comparisons lightly, make sure you have a bucket of salt to go with them. My desktop calculator has more computing power than ALL of the Apollo moon missions had put together. The chips themselves rarely matter, its the programmers that do stuff with those chips that really deserve the credit.


Also, comparisons on operations per second are crap, the P4 ops per second have larger operations, which means more gets done. In this case, a P4 system would outclass the flight avionics system. Why dont they update? Because the PPro system is a known, its a 32 processor system and as such is less susceptable to loosing a couple of processors.



The Global Hawk can taxi and take off with one click of the mouse go do recon and come back and land with a click off the mouse and taxi back exactly where it left from, then click the mouse and its engine shuts-off.



Baby steps. That sort of stuff was easy, I was doing similiar stuff to that back in 1999 with model aircraft. Taxiing, taking off, flying to a point and landing again is simple, believe me. The Buran did the same to orbit in the late 1980s.

The real tests come when unknowns enter the arena. Global Hawk is crap at making realtime decisions that dont fit into precisely documented criteria. Cross wind? Ground controller takes over. Spot something interesting just off the flight path? Ground controller takes over. Threat warning? Controller.

We havent yet mastered the art of teaching an UCAV when its in trouble, when it needs to think for itself, when it needs to adapt to its situation. THAT is the hard part, basically all the UCAVs currently under development are reusable weapons delivery platforms, along the lines of the cruise missile. Take ordanance to point A, drop it, come home.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 08:30 AM
link   
There was a recent show on Discovery Wings about the F-22 that stated that its computer was able to do 35 Billion Operations Per Second.

The Vagabond your right about the UCAVs not needing true human level AI as there job wouldnt require that much power. But when human level AI comes it will make them all the much better and really there is no limit on how powerful they can get. Bombers could get by being quite stupid compared to things such as AvA dogfights will require a much higher level of intelligence.

Robots are by any standard stupid right now, but they are growing at a rate of something like a million times faster then human.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I would seriously speculate that a Gen 7 Fighter aircraft would be the embodiment of all type aircraft, being:
* a true all weather fighter

* capable of doing all combat missions (ie: bomber, ground attack, etc.)

* able to be flown, if necessary, by robotics or ground based-pilot.

* having 'jump' capability in that the aircraft can go into space on limited excursions.

My personal opinion is that the pilot will never truly be replaced.


seekerof



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Good point Seekerof "* capable of doing all combat missions (ie: bomber, ground attack, etc.)" I agree with this as I think shape changing materials will play a large role in Gen 7 planes. If they have to do a bombing run the plane wings and overall shape will change for that role ei. faster,higher, more stealthly runs. If the plane finds it self in a AvA role its shape will change to suit that need able to take better turns and so forth.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
There was a recent show on Discovery Wings about the F-22 that stated that its computer was able to do 35 Billion Operations Per Second.



Every other source Ive come across has stated a figure between 7 and 12 billion ops per sec. Discovery Wings has made some glaring errors in the past, so these days the only things I believe from that channel are that aircraft fly and go to airshows




Robots are by any standard stupid right now, but they are growing at a rate of something like a million times faster then human.


We havent even got a good AI basis going, we have computers that can make decisions, yes, but none of them can make decisions outside of the scope that they are programmed. AI based UCAVs must be able to COMPLETELY make decisions on their own, for example if the main target is too risky to attack, it needs to make the decision to go for a secondary target. Then it has to decide which target, wheres its exit route going to be, is the secondary target worth the cost of itself, are there any other risks? What if an AAA battery opens up, one that wasnt on its preprogrammed map.

Also, what if a UCAV suffers from mechanical failure during the mission? It has to be able to make all the little decisions that we as humans make many millions of times a minute, and take them for granted. AI on that scale is far far far from ready. It isnt a question of computational power, studies have shown thata 1.7GHz P4 processor runs faster and has more computational power than a human brain, yet it cannot emulate one.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I agree RichardPrice about computers right now they might be able to tell this object is a T-72 but if there are dozens of school children playing on a old T-72 it will not understand that. I could program a robot to iron my shirt but it wont understand the point of the task is to get the shirt free of wrinkles.

But I dont see Gen 7 planes comming until 2050 more then enough time to have true AI.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I agree RichardPrice about computers right now they might be able to tell this object is a T-72 but if there are dozens of school children playing on a old T-72 it will not understand that. I could program a robot to iron my shirt but it wont understand the point of the task is to get the shirt free of wrinkles.

But I dont see Gen 7 planes comming until 2050 more then enough time to have true AI.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]



The goal of AI has been sought for the past 50 years, ever since computers were brought into mainstream usage. What makes you think the next 50 years is going to bring us any nearer?
The same goes for flying cars, fusion power, space travel (proper space travel, not the travesty that is the ISS and near earth orbit). All have been 'just around the corner' for decades, and we are no closer to any of them.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I think it will happen because unlike flying cars and fusion reactors and the like computer have made amazing advancements in the last 50 years. Computers are the one thing that lived up to the hype. Even now though a robots have about the brain power of a lobotomized cockroach. So its really hard to program AI with that type of brain power. I have built many robots and know with even limited brain power they can do some impressive task. The mechanical parts of robots are all set just the brain is holding everything up. The are already some robots that can learn , one happens to to play air hockey. It gets better with every game and even gets better by just wacthing others play.

Right now it is estimated that human levels of computing power will be be around in about 2020 so I think 2050 is a rather conservative estimate.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join