|Joe Green's "Super Arrow"|
So far, the "Fifth Generation" of fighter jet aircraft is looking pretty tepid. The F-22 was simply too expensive and plagued with problems, both technical and political. The controversy behind the under-performing, over-budget, and overdue F-35 is growing to near mythical proportions. Even the Russian PAK-FA, or T-50, is behind schedule and likely won't see widespread production until 2024 or later. The Chinese J-20 and J-31 are still very much in the prototype phase and are both likely years away. Of course, there is always the Iranian F-313...
The general theme of "5th generation" aircraft thus far seems to be one of "over-promise" and "under-deliver". We can't really blame the designers or engineers behind these issues. These aircraft were conceived at the tail end of the Cold War, when defence budgets were limitless and the pressure was on to develop new technologies as a way to "one up" the enemy. Needless to say, times have changed. Defence budgets have been slashed, and the enemy is no longer an established "superpower". Threats are smaller, but much more unpredictable. The actions of governments in Syria, Iran, and North Korea have the world on edge. A global "hotspot" like Mali, can pop up out of nowhere, seemingly overnight.
Isn't it time to start considering a 6th generation fighter for "new world" needs?
|Lockheed's "6th Generation" fighter concept.|
So what will a 6th generation jet fighter look like? That's hard to say, as there has been little more than artist's renderings so far. Naturally, it would build upon the foundation of current 5th generation aircraft, to include stealth, thrust vectoring, powerful AESA (and better) radar, infrared tracking, and helmet mounted displays.
But what features will make new fighters truly "6th Generation"? I would suggest the following:
|A Boeing F/A-XX concept with a manned version (top) and UCAV version.|
UCAV variants. A 6th generation fighter would share a common airframe with both piloted and unmanned versions. The UCAV version could be used for more dangerous missions, while the piloted versions act as "command" units. Ideally, the cockpit would be modular, allowing easy conversion. This would allow units with high airframe hours to be converted to UCAV status for safety reasons.
|The X-51A "Waverider" Scramjet prototype on a B-52 pylon.|
|The Boeing YAL-1 with Airborne Laser, or ABL.|
The story doesn't end there however, part of the problem with the ABL and ATL was the use of chemical lasers. They are very large and contain dangerous chemical gas to "fuel" the laser. Newer developments in liquid based lasers promise enough energy to bring down an aircraft (about 150kW) yet is small enough to fit on a truck, and should be able to be mounted on a jet fighter. Solid state lasers offer even more promise for jet fighter use, as they pack even more punch for there size. Their biggest drawback, cooling, shouldn't really be an issue while flying through the sub-zero temperatures of the stratosphere. Energy weapons would make great air combat weapons. They are instantaneous, can't be dodged, and work best in high altitude, low cloud environments.
Most importantly, a 6th generation fighter must avoid the mistakes made with the 5th generation. The 5th generation of jet fighters seem so focused on stealth and BVR (beyond visual range) combat, that they are willing to sacrifice WVR (within visual range) performance and affordability. This is similar to the 3rd generation fighters, where powerful engines and guided missiles were thought to render the concept of dogfighting obsolete. The Vietnam air war proved this to be wrong, and 4th generation fighters like the F-15 and F-16 were designed to be just as good up close as far away.
6th generation fighters should be stealthy, but not have to rely on their stealth exclusively. They should be just as deadly in a tight dogfight as they are from hundreds of kilometres away. They should be multi-role aircraft, able to take out enemy air cover as easily as enemy ground targets. They should be deployable enough to fly to an emerging "hot spot" at a moments notice.
Most importantly, a 6th generation fighter should be affordable. There is little point in having a cutting edge uber-fighter if it is too expensive to build, too expensive to fly, or so overly complicated that it never gets out of development. New technology is great, but not every system has to be a radical quantum leap ahead of previous systems. Off-the-shelf technology should be used whenever possible, and thought should be given to future maintenance and upgrade needs.
With the high-roller F-22 cancelled, and the F-35 meeting delays and cost overruns, perhaps Canada should look towards the future and skip the 5th generation jet completely. A low cost, but still capable jet like the Gripen would certainly meet our needs for the time being, and Canada could work toward developing a 6th generation "Super Arrow".
|Faster, stealthier, deadlier.|
Artist and designer Joe Green has shown what he believe a Super Arrow should look like. Bigger, more powerful, and stealthier than its aborted namesake, Joe's Super Arrow looks poised to compete with jets like the F-22, PAK FA, and J-20. Joe believes that we, as Canadians, could develop and build his Super Arrow in time for the CF-18s to retire. I fear I don't share his optimism in that regard, but see no reason why such an aircraft couldn't be developed as a 6th generation fighter ready to see service around the year 2030 or so, especially if we partner up with Saab, Dassault, or the Eurofighter consortium. (Joe would prefer it we go it alone, but he's not totally against the idea)
I encourage anyone reading this to check out http://www.superarrow.ca. Joe has drawn up a heck of a beautiful aircraft, and continues to refine the design as he gets input and comments both directly and on the Super Arrow's Facebook page. It is still a "work in progress" and I think it will be very interesting to see the final result.
[Joe was kind enough to give me permission to use his images on this site. All images of the Super Arrow remain his intellectual property. Thanks again, Joe!]