why has there been no two seater 5th gen fighter aircraft thus far?

A requirement for 6th generation is a substantial increase in combat radius and loiter time. If the solution is manned, it will likely require a 2-man crew because humans don’t manage task saturation well after a couple hours in the hot seat.

Larger aircraft (such as those predictably associated with “a substantial increase in combat radius and loiter time”) also pay a lesser penalty for carrying a second seat than smaller aircraft.

Yes. The second pilot might be seating in a air conditionnned hangar enjoying a cushioned seat while sipping a large soda. He might even be an old fat long retired from flight sergeant or a skinny tiny woman retired from flight duty to end her pregnancy or just another hotshot recuperating his/her overtime.

If you can unman with an operator assuming the ultimate task of engaging kinetic actions, there are no limitations anymore to keep a GIB from seating out of the cockpit.

Pilot fatigue will be alleviated by better seating, resting position (like the Su34 and B2) and automated (monitored?) task.

With intercontinental fighter that might be requested for 6th Gen, pilots might spend a tremendous part of their flight time… Resting and enjoying the landscape.
Imagine a take off from a base in Nevada, a lengthy solo flight with planes synchronized with their allocated refueling time, automatic refuel and then, again lengthy flight to reach mission theater with sections slowly recomposing themselves according to flight plan*, all this automated, pre-computed and only adjusted thanks to the increased in flight plan, INS and weather prediction, pilot might just wakeup and taking control in the last 1000nm before target out of 6000nm inbound flight!

The inevitable problem as with their civilian counterpart would be to keep them stick proficient… Hence the need for high perf trainer and, as I have suggested in the Civilian thread, inflight school.

*see B29 missions toward Japan

A requirement for 6th generation is a substantial increase in combat radius and loiter time. If the solution is manned, it will likely require a 2-man crew because humans don’t manage task saturation well after a couple hours in the hot seat. A 2-man crew could alleviate the task saturation concern, but so could an unmanned solution monitored via BLOS link from a ground station.

Given that shape is the largest contributor to RCS management, designing a twin seater would not be that hard.

There has just not been a need.

twin seat fighters are draggier and heavier.
put those requirement into 5G and the whole thing can become slower and shorter range.
5G need to design in way that tanker/AWACS support is at distance from battlefield(otherwise they are going to be shot down), miniimum use of external fuel tanks, supercruise at most altitudes.

Remember that A-12 was a two-seater before SECDEF Cheney pulled the plug on it.

How does having multiple nodes affect surprise?

Better to have the capability than not, despite the slight relay delay timing.

You do realize that MADL is completely automatic and requires no human interaction, right?

With MADL & LOS, you only need LOS to a another node which is why MADL is designed to support 25 nodes.

Yeah control your stealth UCAV with 25 support nodes to relay data. Nice way to achieve surprise.

Nic

With MADL & LOS, you only need LOS to a another node which is why MADL is designed to support 25 nodes.

MADL or SATCOM to the F-35 that relays it to the UAV.

MADL is a directional datalink, which means you need line of sight. As for satellites, you are absolutely right, they can’t be jammed… ever.

Nic

Sorry that I was not clear enough.

“If” it was part of the original requirement then a 2nd seat could have been included without a significant negative impact on RCS but would be more expensive to dev, build, and fly.

Obviously adding a 2nd seat to an “existing” 5th gen design would be horrendously expensive if they still needed to meed range and RCS specs.

Given that shape is the largest contributor to RCS management, designing a twin seater would not be that hard.

Its not a question of being “hard”, it would end in an almost new aircraft and it would be bloody expensive.

Given that shape is the largest contributor to RCS management, designing a twin seater would not be that hard.

There has just not been a need.

The main reason why almost every 4th generation has a twin seater and the 5th ones dont is because the RCS management would have gone T***s up in these last ones.
A fourth generation twin seater is a fully combat capable aircraft, wich by the way also acts has a very high end trainer, you cant do that with a fifth generation fighter because sticking another hole in the airframe would throw the entire RCS LO equation to Ouagadougou. Top that with the reasons that Spud have already listed and “presto”, no twin stickers for Raptors, Pak´s, etc.

obviously, 2 seater cost that much more so it’s not justified, did you just wake up ?

You misunderstood the context.

The “reasons” I put forward were to do with why there was a requirement in the past “FOR” a two-seater while Coach’s “reason” was likely why “NOT” to have a two-seater with 5th gens.

I was just asking Coach to clarify the context.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s the French Air Force modified the types of Rafales to be acquired.

– Up to 1992, 250 Rafale; 225 single-seaters and 25 two-seaters.
– 1992 revision, 231 Rafale: 95 single-seaters and 136 two-seaters.

The reasons given were that the cost of a WSO was not that high compared to the whole cost of acquisition and operation, and a second crew member was useful in many missions.

Perhaps somebody can provide more detail.

Let’s try to repeat it, we are talking about making a 2-seat variant of a existing 5 gen plane.
It would mean to recalculate its RCS a second time, a very costly thing indeed, for just a pair of it for each squadron.
This when, just as an example, Russia acquired just a mere 20 Su-30MK2 to act as the OCU of all of its new acquired Flankers instead developing an ad hoc version of each of them.
So, probably we will see two seat 5gen just when they would made the substitute of a plane that is actually comes in two seat version only, unless the advance of technology would allow to made the second one redundant.

You can’t make a 2 seat variant of existing 5th gens, not the F-22 and F-35 at least. Their fuselages are not designed for that, they would have to be lengthened and it would change the CoG completely.

How can cost be “the” main reason to have a two-seater as they have shorter ranges & higher crew costs?

obviously, 2 seater cost that much more so it’s not justified, did you just wake up ?

How can cost be “the” main reason to have a two-seater as they have shorter ranges & higher crew costs?

Compared to what the aircraft cost nowadays, crew cost is outright laughable.

Let’s try to repeat it, we are talking about making a 2-seat variant of a existing 5 gen plane.
It would mean to recalculate its RCS a second time, a very costly thing indeed, for just a pair of it for each squadron.
This when, just as an example, Russia acquired just a mere 20 Su-30MK2 to act as the OCU of all of its new acquired Flankers instead developing an ad hoc version of each of them.
So, probably we will see two seat 5gen just when they would made the substitute of a plane that is actually comes in two seat version only, unless the advance of technology would allow to made the second one redundant.

Compared to what the aircraft cost nowadays, crew cost is outright laughable.

Sorry, but I think you forgot the main reason:

– costs

How can cost be “the” main reason to have a two-seater as they have shorter ranges & higher crew costs?