- Messages
- 1,398
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Please don't misunderstand, but I find these generation discussions really strange. There are significant differences and advances between the 4th and 5th generation, but when it comes to the transition to the 6th generation, there are not so clear lines. The leading argument for the 6th generation is engine technologies, but won't these engines be integrated into the fifth generation jets when they are ready? Coating technologies, sensor fusion, advanced displaying systes and augmented reality decision support systems, you name it... What is referred to as 6th generation actually means something like 5.5/5++. Technically, almost all of the systems that will be included in these aircraft can be integrated with the 5th generation jets, unless someone is willing to go to the cost of creating a highly maneuverable air superiority jet with 9G and without any vertical stabilizers. A 6th generation fighter jet for Europe is probably another 15 years away, for it to really pay off. It remains to be seen what the US will come up with with NGAD, but in any case this jet will be an extraordinarily expensive aircraft, even for the US. Also I still have a very low expectation that we will see an air superiority jet with vertical stabilizers completely removed from the tail. Of course, future combat aviation is gradually moving from close engagement capabilities to electronic capabilities and engagement over very long distances, which is another aspect of the issue.
The MMU is essentially a platform that aims to go far beyond most traditional 5th generation conceptualizations of the early 2000s. But here I think we have a big challenge ahead of us in terms of the engine. actually not 1 but two: The first is to reach the variable cycle engine for next generation military aircrafts within 15 years. The second is to reach the maturity to use directed-energy weapons at supersonic speeds and against highly maneuverable aircraft/ammunitions.
To summarize other capability criteria to describing 6th gen:
* AI, data fusion, cyber warfare, D2D and battlefield command, control and communications (C3) capabilities
* Optionally manned with the same airframe, onboard-AI controlled missions.
* Enhanced human-systems integration, with virtual cockpits presented via helmet-mounted displays, AI-enhanced battlefield awareness.
* Advanced stealth airframes and avionics (this is the most critical issue, NGAD will be quite decisive in that respect)
* Joint misson capability with uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircrafts
* Increased-range stand-off and BVR weapons
etc.
All of these are included in the MMU roadmap already. And if we keep everything on schedule, we will probably have the first generation of indigenous engines within 15 years. Again, when the GCAP or FCAS will come out of the first block production line, probably MMU will have completed its fourth or fifth block update, and It will be a platform that meets many of the above criteria. But above all, we are now advancing a fighter jet program without a partner. This is accompanied by massive investments in infrastructure and the hirings that now number in the thousands annually. What makes the MMU valuable is that, unlike previous attempts to build a fighter jet that were abandoned by some promising countries before, this is an industrial breakthrough far beyond a building just a aircraft. In short, in those years, the next step will probably have already been started.
The MMU is essentially a platform that aims to go far beyond most traditional 5th generation conceptualizations of the early 2000s. But here I think we have a big challenge ahead of us in terms of the engine. actually not 1 but two: The first is to reach the variable cycle engine for next generation military aircrafts within 15 years. The second is to reach the maturity to use directed-energy weapons at supersonic speeds and against highly maneuverable aircraft/ammunitions.
To summarize other capability criteria to describing 6th gen:
* AI, data fusion, cyber warfare, D2D and battlefield command, control and communications (C3) capabilities
* Optionally manned with the same airframe, onboard-AI controlled missions.
* Enhanced human-systems integration, with virtual cockpits presented via helmet-mounted displays, AI-enhanced battlefield awareness.
* Advanced stealth airframes and avionics (this is the most critical issue, NGAD will be quite decisive in that respect)
* Joint misson capability with uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircrafts
* Increased-range stand-off and BVR weapons
etc.
All of these are included in the MMU roadmap already. And if we keep everything on schedule, we will probably have the first generation of indigenous engines within 15 years. Again, when the GCAP or FCAS will come out of the first block production line, probably MMU will have completed its fourth or fifth block update, and It will be a platform that meets many of the above criteria. But above all, we are now advancing a fighter jet program without a partner. This is accompanied by massive investments in infrastructure and the hirings that now number in the thousands annually. What makes the MMU valuable is that, unlike previous attempts to build a fighter jet that were abandoned by some promising countries before, this is an industrial breakthrough far beyond a building just a aircraft. In short, in those years, the next step will probably have already been started.
Last edited:
