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

LowObservable said:
So NG has a magic 6genTM design in the works, is figuring out how to build a demonstrator at Scaled, and tells the comms folks to show it to the world in living color.

seems_legit.jpg
Click to expand...

All the while being partially secretive about their T-X design ;)
 
Maybe I should be less naïve having been a member of this site for almost seven years :D BUT does anyone think there is a program further along for 6th Generation or is this solely PR?

It's just with about $300 billion spent on black programs since F-22 stopped production I 'optimistically' believe there are 'platforms' out there?
 
I think the same with the black program budget it must be easy to build 6th gen fighter black demonstrator ;)
 
There must be ongoing work into 6th gen fighter layouts.

This video is probably representative of the direction NG is considering, actual layout details are only for visual effects.
 
One of the reasons I always like NG's stuff is because they always go for such 'sci-fi' designs. ;)
 
NG does more war games with fictional parameters of aircraft than play around with design layouts.
That 6th Gen design is a reflection of what qualities they believe few 6th Gen fighter need to have to beat a lot of 5th Gen ones.

I believe they used that approach when designing the YF-23. The operational concept came before the design.
 
Reminds me a bit of Model 85 that some of the AFRL guys (Reuter and Iden) are exploring :

GTOW: 85,000 lbs
length: 78 feet
span: 50 feet

lateral TVC for yaw stabilization
 

Attachments

  • m85.png
    m85.png
    367.1 KB · Views: 716
Hi,

I tried tracing the fighter in the Northrop Grumman advert. Some of the details are not a 100%, and I apologize it isn't really symmetrical in certain aspects, I unfortunately could not get a perfect top view or side view, so simply flipping one side and mirroring it is not an option.
 

Attachments

  • cvtjO8N.png
    cvtjO8N.png
    129.5 KB · Views: 633
Very nice.
Just in case - LMSW FX planform.
 

Attachments

  • LMSW FX planform.jpg
    LMSW FX planform.jpg
    77.3 KB · Views: 573
BlastWave said:
Hi,

I tried tracing the fighter in the Northrop Grumman advert. Some of the details are not a 100%, and I apologize it isn't really asymmetrical in certain aspects, I unfortunately could not get a perfect top view or side view, so simply flipping one side and mirroring it is not an option.
Click to expand...

Its uncanny, how much it looks like Mcdonnell Douglas's crank arrow atf circa 1986. All it needs is the wingtip stabs and the canopy on the other side. I scoured the web and can't locate any pics of the wind tunnel model or any of the artwork that was floating around in those days.

Of course this is a single engine concept by NG.
 
Thinking of these?
 

Attachments

  • xD4C-119781-2_Nov-81.jpg
    xD4C-119781-2_Nov-81.jpg
    100.4 KB · Views: 133
  • McD-SF-1302.jpg
    McD-SF-1302.jpg
    26.6 KB · Views: 146
  • xD4C-119859-1_Jan-82.jpg
    xD4C-119859-1_Jan-82.jpg
    156.1 KB · Views: 156
A few things... the jagged trailing edge does not appear on other renderings of the Northrop design - artistic license perhaps, to add a bit of visual excitement to a plain silhouette?

Second, the exhaust plumes seem very narrow compared to what one would expect on such a large aircraft. Artistic license again, something about the variable cycle engines?

http://news.usni.org/2014/06/23/next-generation-engine-work-points-future-u-s-fighter-designs

Could indicate the hot inner plume is sheathed in a cold outer flow - or is it just art?

Third, differences between Navy and AF versions. AF version has single, relatively narrow exhaust as noted - could be single engined if we ignore the video presentation? Navy version has ventral inlets and clearly two, wider-spaced engines. Ventral intakes make sense assuming high AoA takeoff and landing on a carrier, and it's known that quite a bit or arm twisting was involved to get them to accept the single-engined F-35 (yes, in the past they've had single-engine planes, but none in recent decades). Reasons for spacing? Efficiencies of packing internal weapons loads within a restricted length, thermal considerations for the flight deck - ie, two spaced plumes scorch less intensely than one big one? Am I over thinking this?
 

Attachments

  • image (1).jpeg
    image (1).jpeg
    50.9 KB · Views: 115
The more I think about the more I think the artist simply looked at what they figured was Northrop's most advanced aircraft out there - the X-47B- saw there was a divider in the nozzle, and figured it would mean there would be two flames in the back. The end.
 
AF version has single, relatively narrow exhaust as noted - could be single engined if we ignore the video presentation? Navy version has ventral inlets and clearly two, wider-spaced engines.
Click to expand...
I just read somewhere that DoD has learned a lesson and F-X and F/A-XX would be different designs specific to USAF and USN needs. However, given how complex and critical to performance next gen variable cycle engines will be, both platforms will have to share a common engine.
 
While the general planform is likely in the ballpark of what Northrop's considering, it's clear that the advertisement was run by the arts department - you have control surfaces of varying sizes (and more surfaces than you need), fighters pulling Hollywood-inspired maneuvers, X-47Bs flying missions, complete with flight test instrumentation antenna, etc.

If you're looking for new concepts or ideas, you'd be better off stealing and reading their used tea mugs.
 
lantinian said:
and more surfaces than you need
Click to expand...
Actually, if you eliminate the tails you need exactly 8 trailing wing control surfaces. Check B-2
Click to expand...

You could do fine with 4. See X-47B. (Taranis, Regulus 2, and others get by with 2.) The inboard are flaps/elevators, the outboard are ailerons/split-rudders. (The outboard could be used for everything to one degree or another. I suppose they all could, software permitting.)
 
If you're looking for new concepts or ideas, you'd be better off stealing and reading their used tea mugs.
Click to expand...

Heh. I read in Ben Rich's autobiography that they commissioned a coffee mug for the F-117 showing the aircraft's nose protruding from a cloud with a skunk tail coming out the other side. It was immediately classified.
 
lantinian said:
AF version has single, relatively narrow exhaust as noted - could be single engined if we ignore the video presentation? Navy version has ventral inlets and clearly two, wider-spaced engines.
Click to expand...
I just read somewhere that DoD has learned a lesson and F-X and F/A-XX would be different designs specific to USAF and USN needs. However, given how complex and critical to performance next gen variable cycle engines will be, both platforms will have to share a common engine.
Click to expand...

As of the FY2017 budget, both efforts fall under the joint NGAD program.

I would think the Navy would need Ford to go through its carrier airwing qualifications to get a real sense of the limits of AAG and EMALS along
with testing of Kennedy's new all-electric aircraft elevators. Those constraints really inform the Navy's design; the AFRL studies are trending towards a fighter larger than F-111.
 
Just for the fun of it: would it be of interest if i opened a thread in either "Theoretical and Speculative Projects" or "Alternative History and Future Speculation" (i think the latter would be the most apt section) and offered to model a 3d representation of what we could come up with as a future speculative F-X?

Obviously every aspect of the design would have to be motivated, sort of like a team project.

Ten years from now we could look at what we made and think how close/far we were from the real deal ;)

Regards.
 
lantinian said:
AF version has single, relatively narrow exhaust as noted - could be single engined if we ignore the video presentation? Navy version has ventral inlets and clearly two, wider-spaced engines.
Click to expand...
I just read somewhere that DoD has learned a lesson and F-X and F/A-XX would be different designs specific to USAF and USN needs. However, given how complex and critical to performance next gen variable cycle engines will be, both platforms will have to share a common engine.
Click to expand...

Engine sharing seems possible, as do a lot of sub-systems and avionics, and would save development money and reduce production costs. Example: why would they need entirely different radar sets when one common design could be used? They are likely to be roughly the same size, so it wouldn't be like commonizing a radar between something -16 sized and something -22 sized.
 
Lockheed Martin's ESAV study

Length: 64 feet
Wingspan: 63 feet
TOGW: 69,000 lb
 

Attachments

  • lm-esav-vortex.png
    lm-esav-vortex.png
    118.5 KB · Views: 504
  • lm-esav-tunnel.png
    lm-esav-tunnel.png
    517 KB · Views: 526
  • lm-esav.png
    lm-esav.png
    319.3 KB · Views: 537
marauder - what ARFL studies?

I'm not surprised that a future fighter will tend towards F-111 size, that was the last(?) USAF (strike) fighter with substantial range. It isn't surprising that future fighters, which need similar range, would get a similar size.
 
Besides the obvious reasons one clear indicator that it's an invention of the art department is that the intakes are on the wrong side for a fighter. Would be pretty difficult to maintain airflow to the top mounted intake in a moderate AoA turn. You can get away with that on a bomber. A lot harder to do on something that's got to yank and bank.
 
GreenBullet said:
Besides the obvious reasons one clear indicator that it's an invention of the art department is that the intakes are on the wrong side for a fighter. Would be pretty difficult to maintain airflow to the top mounted intake in a moderate AoA turn. You can get away with that on a bomber. A lot harder to do on something that's got to yank and bank.
Click to expand...

I found that interesting but not implausible. A belly-mounted laser turret is incorporated and other artwork shows it being used defensively against AA missiles. With 180 degrees coverage in that hemisphere and maybe a pop-up dorsal turret and increased reliance on BVR combat tactics, conventional requirements for manoeuvrability might be downplayed compared to stealth - rightly or wrongly. Boeing also has dorsal inlets on its AF fighter concept and on an earlier iteration of the Navy version.

Of course it was thought that the gun was obsolete in air to air combat and one was not included in the F-4... but was back on the F-15. Later iterations of the concepts from both Boeing and Northrop may well have ventral or cheek inlets.
 

Attachments

  • yourfile.jpeg
    yourfile.jpeg
    26.9 KB · Views: 346
  • F-X Boeing copy.jpg
    F-X Boeing copy.jpg
    340.2 KB · Views: 330
  • af-xx new copy.jpg
    af-xx new copy.jpg
    14.5 KB · Views: 133
Sixth-Gen Fighter Likely Won’t Be Common Across Services, Air Force General Says

WASHINGTON — In a departure from the dual-service F-35 effort, the Pentagon’s sixth-generation fighter jet likely won’t be common between the US Air Force and the US Navy, a top Air Force general said Friday.
The next generation of fighters likely will be designed as separate aircraft across the services because the Air Force and Navy will have unique mission requirements in future decades, said Lt. Gen. James “Mike” Holmes, Air Force deputy chief of staff for plans and requirements. The sixth-generation fighter jet will replace the Air Force’s F-22s and the Navy’s F/A-18s in the 2030s.
Click to expand...

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2016/02/12/sixth-gen-fighter-likely-wont-common-across-services-air-force-general-says/80307248/
 
It would be a waste of money to develop 2 air superiority fighters, one for the USAF and one of the USN. With obvious changes for carrier suitability to a USAF design, there is no need for 2 different fighters. BVR fleet defense is not contraindicated for a USAF BVR need. Both USN and USAF are also going to require a WVR ACM ability. It isn't like the 70s and 80s anymore when the USN had the phoenix, and the USAF didn't; they're going to be carrying the same AAMs. Where is the need? I don't see the Navy wanting or needing a 2 person crew. Especially when a production run for either service isn't going to approach 400 copies in this day and age, it's going to be awfully expensive and wasteful for 2 unique designs.
 
Airplane said:
It would be a waste of money to develop 2 air superiority fighters, one for the USAF and one of the USN. With obvious changes for carrier suitability to a USAF design, there is no need for 2 different fighters. BVR fleet defense is not contraindicated for a USAF BVR need. Both USN and USAF are also going to require a WVR ACM ability. It isn't like the 70s and 80s anymore when the USN had the phoenix, and the USAF didn't; they're going to be carrying the same AAMs. Where is the need? I don't see the Navy wanting or needing a 2 person crew. Especially when a production run for either service isn't going to approach 400 copies in this day and age, it's going to be awfully expensive and wasteful for 2 unique designs.
Click to expand...

Different roles. I doubt what the USAF is looking for will even be light enough for a carrier.
 
DrRansom said:
marauder - what ARFL studies?
Click to expand...
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2015-2324
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2016-0292
 
sferrin said:
Airplane said:
It would be a waste of money to develop 2 air superiority fighters, one for the USAF and one of the USN. With obvious changes for carrier suitability to a USAF design, there is no need for 2 different fighters. BVR fleet defense is not contraindicated for a USAF BVR need. Both USN and USAF are also going to require a WVR ACM ability. It isn't like the 70s and 80s anymore when the USN had the phoenix, and the USAF didn't; they're going to be carrying the same AAMs. Where is the need? I don't see the Navy wanting or needing a 2 person crew. Especially when a production run for either service isn't going to approach 400 copies in this day and age, it's going to be awfully expensive and wasteful for 2 unique designs.
Click to expand...

Different roles. I doubt what the USAF is looking for will even be light enough for a carrier.
Click to expand...
Different roles almost certainly. The last two flagship air superiority/dominance fighters from the USAF have only paid lip service to air-to-mud missions, even if they take a couple steps forward in that department I'm not expecting a true multirole. At least not initially. The Navy, on the other hand, is likely to desire aircraft that can take on as many missions as possible even if they're giving up being at the edge of the envelope to do so.
 
DrRansom said:
marauder - what ARFL studies?

I'm not surprised that a future fighter will tend towards F-111 size, that was the last(?) USAF (strike) fighter with substantial range. It isn't surprising that future fighters, which need similar range, would get a similar size.
Click to expand...

Under the ESAV effort, AFRL awarded NGAD (F-X, F/A-XX) study contracts to LM and NG. Shown below is one of NG's designs that should look familiar.

flateric said:
DrRansom said:
marauder - what ARFL studies?
Click to expand...
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2015-2324
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2016-0292
Click to expand...

Yep. That's part of the overall output and those particular papers carry the US Government non-copyright so I feel comfortable with excerpting them.
 

Attachments

  • ng-esav1.png
    ng-esav1.png
    557.6 KB · Views: 560
  • ng-esav2.png
    ng-esav2.png
    719.3 KB · Views: 589
sferrin said:
Different roles. I doubt what the USAF is looking for will even be light enough for a carrier.
Click to expand...

Where is your information coming from? Too heavy for a carrier, implies something really quite big and not an air superiority fighter. Does anyone remember a time when A-5s were still on the decks of Navy carriers, and the A-5 was huge, bigger than a F-111 and not all of the carriers were large Nimitz class at that time. So too heavy for a carrier is starting to sound like something between an f-111 and B-58.

If the USAF, USMC, and USN can get a common single engine fighter/bomber, then it will be even easier for the USAF and USN to develop a common fighter.
 
Airplane said:
sferrin said:
Different roles. I doubt what the USAF is looking for will even be light enough for a carrier.
Click to expand...

Where is your information coming from? Too heavy for a carrier, implies something really quite big and not an air superiority fighter. Does anyone remember a time when A-5s were still on the decks of Navy carriers, and the A-5 was huge, bigger than a F-111 and not all of the carriers were large Nimitz class at that time. So too heavy for a carrier is starting to sound like something between an f-111 and B-58.
Click to expand...

The A-5 And A3D were about at the top of what a carrier could or can handle with the current gear and catapults (~80,000lbs). My assumption is based on the facts that the F-22 is seen as too short in range (fuel) and payload (internally carried missiles). The only way you're going to get more of both is with a bigger (heavier aircraft). I would not be at all surprised to see the F-X at 75,000 - 90,000lb at full internal load.
 
sferrin said:
Airplane said:
sferrin said:
Different roles. I doubt what the USAF is looking for will even be light enough for a carrier.
Click to expand...

Where is your information coming from? Too heavy for a carrier, implies something really quite big and not an air superiority fighter. Does anyone remember a time when A-5s were still on the decks of Navy carriers, and the A-5 was huge, bigger than a F-111 and not all of the carriers were large Nimitz class at that time. So too heavy for a carrier is starting to sound like something between an f-111 and B-58.
Click to expand...

The A-5 And A3D were about at the top of what a carrier could or can handle with the current gear and catapults (~80,000lbs). My assumption is based on the facts that the F-22 is seen as too short in range (fuel) and payload (internally carried missiles). The only way you're going to get more of both is with a bigger (heavier aircraft). I would not be at all surprised to see the F-X at 75,000 - 90,000lb at full internal load.
Click to expand...

For comparison, what was the proposed maximum take of weight of the A-12 stealthy carrier-borne attack aircraft before it was cancelled in the early 1990s?
 
FighterJock said:
sferrin said:
Airplane said:
sferrin said:
Different roles. I doubt what the USAF is looking for will even be light enough for a carrier.
Click to expand...

Where is your information coming from? Too heavy for a carrier, implies something really quite big and not an air superiority fighter. Does anyone remember a time when A-5s were still on the decks of Navy carriers, and the A-5 was huge, bigger than a F-111 and not all of the carriers were large Nimitz class at that time. So too heavy for a carrier is starting to sound like something between an f-111 and B-58.
Click to expand...

The A-5 And A3D were about at the top of what a carrier could or can handle with the current gear and catapults (~80,000lbs). My assumption is based on the facts that the F-22 is seen as too short in range (fuel) and payload (internally carried missiles). The only way you're going to get more of both is with a bigger (heavier aircraft). I would not be at all surprised to see the F-X at 75,000 - 90,000lb at full internal load.
Click to expand...

For comparison, what was the proposed maximum take of weight of the A-12 stealthy carrier-borne attack aircraft before it was cancelled in the early 1990s?
Click to expand...

Without resorting to online resources, and just from memory, I remember the two power plants were non-reheat, rated around 12k lbs/per and the maximum weight was 80,000lbs. I don't know if that was the max take off weight. I assume it would take off without full fuel and then tank up.

But I really don't see the need for more AAMs beyond the 8 carried internally by the -22. What I do see is being able mix and match AAMs. Meaning the 2 side bays on the -22 cannot accommodate 120s. If they could then the -22 could carry 8 120s internals. Or 7 120s and 1 sidewinder. Or 7 120s and 2 cobra (if they could fit 2 cobra in one bay). Or 6 120s and 4 cobra.

What do they want, 10 120s and 2 sidewinder? When was the last time any US fighter ever exhausted 4-6 med/long range missiles in a fight? When was the last time more than 6 were needed in a fight? What am I missing that some kind of supercruising missilier with 12 aams is required?

There should be more flexibility in AAM loading, unlike the -22 where the AAM mix is designed into the airframe.
 
Airplane said:
But I really don't see the need for more AAMs beyond the 8 carried internally by the -22.
Click to expand...

The whole point of a larger aircraft is more range and persistence. I'll bet the F-X ends up with 10-12 AIM-120 sized missiles.
 
sferrin said:
Airplane said:
But I really don't see the need for more AAMs beyond the 8 carried internally by the -22.
Click to expand...

The whole point of a larger aircraft is more range and persistence. I'll bet the F-X ends up with 10-12 AIM-120 sized missiles.
Click to expand...

I think something akin to a Flanker in size is more like it. 12 AAMs makes it sound like (some people think) the USAF is planning on a 200 copy production run and needs to make up for lost firepower (from reduced #s) by cramming more missiles into it to make up for limited quantities. Again, another reason for the USAF and USN to communize, reduce costs, and build more.

What do you want to bet the new bomber will be able double duty and carry at least 16 120s? >yes off topic<
 
Dual F135s, APG-81 with larger array, EODAS, Upper & Lower EOTS, MADL, F-35's CNI, F-35 HMDS, F-35 Seat, etc.

99% avionics done :)
 
SpudmanWP said:
Dual F135s, APG-81 with larger array, EODAS, Upper & Lower EOTS, MADL, F-35's CNI, F-35 HMDS, F-35 Seat, etc.

99% avionics done :)
Click to expand...

No love for ADVENT? :'(
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom