USAF/US NAVY 6G Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

The 3,750 lb weight for the F135 would be stellar if it were true, but it is a little suspicious. A P&W fact sheet gives the not-to-exceed weight as 6500+ pounds and it was more recently confirmed as 6444 pounds by P&W.
 

Attachments

  • F135 brochure 2.jpg
    F135 brochure 2.jpg
    239.8 KB · Views: 447
LowObservable said:
The 3,750 lb weight for the F135 would be stellar if it were true, but it is a little suspicious. A P&W fact sheet gives the not-to-exceed weight as 6500+ pounds and it was more recently confirmed as 6444 pounds by P&W.
Click to expand...

You "forgot" the part about how exciting it would be to try to tap TWO engines to run the lift fan upfront.
 
A single lift-cruise engine is pretty much mandatory for STOVL, so I would be the last to recommend a sort of double-Mamba arrangement for SDLF.

But if we're on topic here, NGAD/F/A-XX is not STOVL so the question is how to provide the best performance for that mission.
 
LowObservable said:
A single lift-cruise engine is pretty much mandatory for STOVL, so I would be the last to recommend a sort of double-Mamba arrangement for SDLF.

But if we're on topic here, NGAD/F/A-XX is not STOVL so the question is how to provide the best performance for that mission.
Click to expand...

Two of either the F119 or F135 would end up with an aircraft too large (expensive) for F/A-XX I'd think, and the F414 has limited growth potential (without a lot of work). Read somewhere that GE thinks they might be able to get it to nearly 30k though. What is the difference in mission that they see between F/A-XX and the A/X that was floated after the A-12 and NATF got cancelled? Given the way things are developing in the pacific I'd think they'd want something with a lot of range and speed.
 
The on again-off again and now cancelled GE F136 might fit the bill - two of these equals 80,000 pounds total thrust. -SP
 
It is a sad state when after hundred yrs of Naval Aviation a two engine STOVL can be developed to cover all missions including CAS in a A2AD environment.
 
Steve Pace said:
The on again-off again and now cancelled GE F136 might fit the bill - two of these equals 80,000 pounds total thrust. -SP
Click to expand...

$$$$$ Same reason I doubt we'd see a twin F119/F135.
 
jsport said:
It is a sad state when after hundred yrs of Naval Aviation a two engine STOVL can be developed to cover all missions including CAS in a A2AD environment.
Click to expand...

Twin engine STOVL fighters have very serious engine out problems, which is why you don't see any.
 
Two clo se set engines would be a superior design to all other designs
 
A two-engine STOVL and a single-engine STOVL are similar in that a loss of power in powered-lift mode means immediate loss of aircraft. However, statistics say that it will happen twice as often.

The only way to avoid that would be to make the STOVL twin capable of withstanding a power loss - but that would mean a VL thrust/weight ratio of 2:1 and some means to avoid asymmetry, and nobody has figured out how to do this.
 
When someone pays us we will show them.
 
LowObservable said:
....The only way to avoid that would be to make the STOVL twin capable of withstanding a power loss - but that would mean a VL thrust/weight ratio of 2:1 and some means to avoid asymmetry, and nobody has figured out how to do this.
Click to expand...
Stack the engines on top of each other English Electric Lightning fashion :)

Pretty sure someone thought of this before me.
 
As far as stacking the engines, you have to provide a good location for the nozzles - i.e., the top nozzle can't go through the bottom engine or something like that. So you have to stagger them longitudinally (preferable) or laterally (one more 90 degree bend, so more duct losses). Stagger introduces a moment arm to the c.g. that in the case of engine out translates to a pitching or rolling moment that in a twin engine aircraft would be massive - you lose all thrust on one side while simultaneously having to provide twice as much on the other. My hat's off to you if you can figure out a layout that works.


I can't remember how the X-14 was supposed to cope with engine-out. I'm thinking of it because it was a twin with closely spaced nozzles. It may not have been designed with the capability, and as a result probably had a 'dead-man's' curve.


anyway, the laws of physics being what they are, I think it's pretty tough to come up with any new working layout that hasn't been thought of in the sixties. There is the possibility to make some work better provided breakthroughs in key technologies, like vastly better power-to-weight in batteries, high power electrics, small gas turbines, etc.
 
GTX said:
NUSNA_Moebius said:
If the engine is derived from the F120 (which I understand it is), there certainly is quite a bit of potential. The idea behind the F120 certainly is superior to the F119, but execution is another, especially since a variable cycle engine is pretty much guaranteed to be more expensive. While I also know the YF120 was used in high AoA tests with the YF-22, I do wonder about how stable the engine is and it's reliability in extreme maneuvers.
Click to expand...


If you are referring to the F-136' then it was NOT a derivative of the F120 but rather an entirely new engine developed jointly by Rolls-Royce and GE.
Click to expand...

Hmm I thought it was. Nevermind. As for the F/A-XX, engine choice I think comes down to how important multirole capability. A fleet defense fighter, while needing the high speed dash capability for response time and maximum energy potential for launching AAMs, I think would be better off with engines better suited for loiter, so basically a more bypass oriented turbofan (perhaps a derated F135 to lower SPC?) as opposed to a truly "leaky turbojet" like an F119. However, the weight and volume savings of an F119 might actually count for something too (extra fuel or better aerodynamics)while providing supercruise, despite the loss in max thrust. It would be pretty awesome to see the F119 in an airframe made for a VERY HIGH Vmo, in the Mach 2.5+ range.

The F414 EPE probably would make a good candidate if the F/A-XX doesn't get too heavy, being so small and lightweight. It's too bad all F404 family engines have never been on aircraft with variable geometry inlets.
 
There was a twin-Spey 1154 proposal which had the aft nozzles (I believe) crossed over. Not sure it was loved by anyone, least of all the designers.
 
AeroFranz said:
As far as stacking the engines, you have to provide a good location for the nozzles - i.e., the top nozzle can't go through the bottom engine or something like that. So you have to stagger them longitudinally (preferable) or laterally (one more 90 degree bend, so more duct losses). Stagger introduces a moment arm to the c.g. that in the case of engine out translates to a pitching or rolling moment that in a twin engine aircraft would be massive - you lose all thrust on one side while simultaneously having to provide twice as much on the other. My hat's off to you if you can figure out a layout that works.


I can't remember how the X-14 was supposed to cope with engine-out. I'm thinking of it because it was a twin with closely spaced nozzles. It may not have been designed with the capability, and as a result probably had a 'dead-man's' curve.


anyway, the laws of physics being what they are, I think it's pretty tough to come up with any new working layout that hasn't been thought of in the sixties. There is the possibility to make some work better provided breakthroughs in key technologies, like vastly better power-to-weight in batteries, high power electrics, small gas turbines, etc.
Click to expand...

other subject posts provide technical precedent and a basis for a safe solution which does not stack engines. small gas turbines is a good guessing start.
 
Artist's impression of Boeing NGAD concept presumably manipulated by Paralay to fix the perspective.

Source:
http://paralay.com/ngf/ngf.html
 

Attachments

  • ngf (9).jpg
    ngf (9).jpg
    49.7 KB · Views: 1,914
I always thought the engines were too big as presented; I'd like to see more images of that model...
 
flateric said:
'to fix?'
Click to expand...

Original

index.php


Manipulated

index.php


Make more sense now?

Grigory, if you have issues with what I post, I have no objection to you changing or deleting them.
 
Triton, why so serious? perspective view and symmetry seems to be so distorted at original photo that attempt to fix it looks like rolling over a possum smashed down at the highway and saying that now 'it's fixed'
 
flateric said:
Triton, why so serious? perspective view and symmetry seems to be so distorted at original photo that attempt to fix it looks like rolling over a possum smashed down at the highway and saying that now 'it's fixed'
Click to expand...

No worries, Grigory. I thought that Paralay's manipulation and enlargement was helpful to see the design, despite it's issues. I didn't really understand your objection and it is at least the fourth time this piece of artwork has been attached to this topic. Just wanted to let you know that I don't have any objections to a moderator deleting my attachments if they believe they don't add to the discussion or are considered redundant. Please accept my apology if you considered my response to you to be hostile, that wasn't my intention.
 

Attachments

  • fx-thumb-550xauto-67771.jpg
    fx-thumb-550xauto-67771.jpg
    58.8 KB · Views: 740
  • northrop_concept-thumb-330x454-67768.jpg
    northrop_concept-thumb-330x454-67768.jpg
    6.9 KB · Views: 958
DOD: Edge To 'Shift Against' U.S. Without 'Near-Term' 6th-Gen Fighter Without "near-term" plans to launch a sixth-generation fighter aircraft program before 2030, the Defense Department estimates the U.S. aerospace industry could forfeit what is believed by the U.S. government to be a five-year technological advantage over foreign combat aircraft makers, according to a previously unreported Pentagon assessment.
 
bobbymike said:
DOD: Edge To 'Shift Against' U.S. Without 'Near-Term' 6th-Gen Fighter Without "near-term" plans to launch a sixth-generation fighter aircraft program before 2030, the Defense Department estimates the U.S. aerospace industry could forfeit what is believed by the U.S. government to be a five-year technological advantage over foreign combat aircraft makers, according to a previously unreported Pentagon assessment.
Click to expand...

Uh... it's more like a 20 year "technical advantage," and someone needs to define "near-term" for me. The F-15 had been in service for some 14 years before the YF-22 made its first flight. By that logic, we'll need to be flying the next big thing by 2019. Couple of problems though: First, the cold war urgency is gone; second, the added complexity/expectations of new weapons slows things down further. In any case, I doubt NGAD will be as great a leap as the F-22 was. I find it amusing that people are already coming up with the definition for 6th generation fighters before we even know what the requirements will be. For God's sake! Can't we just see how things pan out for awhile before we start making expensive plans?

FWIW, I'm guessing the NGAD fighter (a Navy program BTY) will probably end up being nothing more than a later-block F-35C.
 
If Air force stay with the 5th gen fighter soon they lost there superiority on the foreign air force, look the Chinese they run very well on new generation and soon they will compete with the US fighters a 6th gen fighter is vital for the superiority of USAF without that Chinese in ten years will dominate the world with all the consequence on the world economy Hurry up USAF to launch a new fighter. F-35 have too poor capacity to dominate futur T-50 and J-20.
 
dark sidius said:
If Air force stay with the 5th gen fighter soon they lost there superiority on the foreign air force, look the Chinese they run very well on new generation and soon they will compete with the US fighters a 6th gen fighter is vital for the superiority of USAF without that Chinese in ten years will dominate the world with all the consequence on the world economy Hurry up USAF to launch a new fighter. F-35 have too poor capacity to dominate futur T-50 and J-20.
Click to expand...

The same sort of crying I read in those cold war books when I was a kid. "Oh woe is us! The Soviets are gonna swamp our puny fleet of F-15s and F-16s with their vastly more-capable/rugged/numerous Mig-29s!" ::)
 
Yes and see the events today and look just a country like Iran everybody are afraid to make a raid so imagine in China or Russia. Ok don't invest and we will see.
 
China and russia as of right now have both created aircraft that are not yet in production, and their capabilities or lack their of are relatively unknown. As 503sgt has alluded to, the Chinese and the Russians have to fly on the same air we do. Just because they have invented airplanes that by the way, are just now catching up to the US which has been producing and in pursuit of fifth generation aircraft for sometime now, does not mean that J-20 and T-50 bend the laws of physics and economics and are instantly better simply by the fact that they were built by our opponents.

China also commissioned a new carrier recently, do you advocate we create space born fighters and space carriers in order to stay one step ahead because china has preceisely one aircraft carrier when we have 12 super carriers? and if so, do we even know what a sixth generation or space fighter entails technologically?
 
1st503rdSGT said:
FWIW, I'm guessing the NGAD fighter (a Navy program BTY) will probably end up being nothing more than a later-block F-35C.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding!! We have a winner!! how did you guess that the Navy won't be able to pursue an ultra advanced, better than F-22 aircraft, that is also carrier capable, without any help from the other services, with as yet unknown technological requirements?

Thats essentially what this has to be. A highly specialized better than F-22 craft, built specifically for the navy. remember too that the F-22's numbers didn't even get to 200 copies. good luck with your laser equipped super fighter, navy!!

dark sidius said:
Ok don't invest and we will see.
Click to expand...

We're investing plenty already thanks, and a lot of people here aren't even convinced that fifth generation fighters are worth the investment as it is. Convincing them to spend billions more on a fighter that only the navy gets to play with because china built a few prototypes is going to be a bit of a tough sell. But I wish you the best of luck, as someone who has been fighting an uphill battle to justify fifth generation fighters to folks who think they are unneeded for sometime myself I can tell ya youll have an awful lot of convincing to do.
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
But I wish you the best of luck, as someone who has been fighting an uphill battle to justify fifth generation fighters to folks who think they are unneeded for sometime myself I can tell ya youll have an awful lot of convincing to do.
Click to expand...

Build it in Europe, I'm sure the usual suspects would have a miraculous change of heart. ;)
 
dark sidius said:
Yes and see the events today and look just a country like Iran everybody are afraid to make a raid so imagine in China or Russia. Ok don't invest and we will see.
Click to expand...

No one's afraid to make raids on Iran; what's scary is the political/diplomatic fallout after a preemptive strike. The name of the game is: whoever strikes first will lose in some way shape or form. It has nothing to do with not having 6th generation fighters.

Think of striking Iran as shooting a grizzly out of season. You'd better be wearing some claw marks when you explain the giant dead bear in the back of your truck.
 
Yes but working in a 6th gen fighters will create a lot of high tech jobs you don't putt money in a hole, its an economic tool, for creating enginers employements. No problem for Europe we will built nothing we are economy dead, Europe is nothing now in this new strategic world.
I agree with you Sferrin may be you will see a fifth generation fighter in Europe above 2060 maybe
 
And what exactly is that 5th generation? I remember times some 15 years ago, when YF-22 was all the time described as 4th generation plane, because in US, fighters were organized just to four generations while in Russia/SSSR into five. I find it perverse today to categorize this plane as 5th generation while other is 4,5 generation and another is 4,8753 generation. Perverse!

On a "requirements" note - tell me, why Europe should replace its new Eurofighters and Rafales with a new design in a near or mid term? Why? What they cant do or with new equipment (Meteor, PIRATE,...) wont be able to do from a list of tasks of their operators? Some child want to have a cooler poster on his wall? Well, that's really a good reason to spend billions of Euro.
 
Matej said:
And what exactly is that 5th generation?
Click to expand...

It's a marketing buzzword. The F-22 has VLO and great performance, but its avionics are somewhat behind state of the art (lack of HMCS being the most glaring shortcoming). Don't get me wrong, a VLO airframe is a big deal, but the arbitrary assignment of value numbers to various types of jet is silly.
 
Matej said:
why Europe should replace its new Eurofighters and Rafales with a new design in a near or mid term? Why? What they cant do or with new equipment (Meteor, PIRATE,...) wont be able to do from a list of tasks of their operators? Some child want to have a cooler poster on his wall? Well, that's really a good reason to spend billions of Euro.
Click to expand...

Possibly because after T-50, J-20 and J-30 hits the arms market, you will not longer be able to sell anything to anyone. Which would be a pity.
 
Matej said:
And what exactly is that 5th generation? I remember times some 15 years ago, when YF-22 was all the time described as 4th generation plane, because in US, fighters were organized just to four generations while in Russia/SSSR into five.
Click to expand...

I don't. As far back as I can remember (at least late 80's or so) the F-teen series was always referred to as 4th generation.
 
chuck4 said:
Possibly because after T-50, J-20 and J-30 hits the arms market, you will not longer be able to sell anything to anyone. Which would be a pity.
Click to expand...

Can you please specify any country as a real potential customer? I mean country that has the real potential to buy European, US, Chinese or Russian fighters in the same time, so they can meet together in the procurement competition. Because as far as I know:

- procurement of the modern fighters was always the matter of politics, not performance
- even USA with all its military expenditures can not afford more than 178 (?) F-22 class single purpose fighters, nor to modernize them at least with FLIR or HMCS
- F-15, a forthy years old plane is still in production for export, while in the same time F-22 production line is closed forever
- why you are so sure that J-20 will ever hits the arms market? With this logic J-10 should now be selling like hot cakes, because it should be/general public expects it to be capable and cheap. Does it?
 
sferrin said:
As far back as I can remember (at least late 80's or so) the F-teen series was always referred to as 4th generation.
Click to expand...

I can remember a lot farther back that that, and no, it wasn't.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom