Navy AX and A/F-X projects

[F-14D]

The Navy used a two stage system very successfully (SM series of missiles), and has for many years.

A ramjet combo has it's own set of problems, which is why the Meteor is STILL not in operation.

Wasn't trying to force ramjet down anyone's throat. BTW, I suspect it would not be a rocket-ramjet combo, but rather an integral rocket/ramjet. The Soviets/Russians have known how to do that for decades. Meteor is not in operation not because it's a ramjet but because it's subject to the vagaries that are universal to posturing politicians. They're always in favor of a newer more advanced capability as long as someone else has done it before and it's in the future where you don't actually have to come up with the bucks for it. Meteor has been moved further and further back because it's approaching the point where the serious funding is coming due, so the can is being repeatedly kicked down the road. This is not meant as a slam at Europe. After all, this was basically the US method of weapons development for most of the '90s (as well as the late '70s).

The complexity issue with multi-stage missiles I referred to was only referring to air launched. The SM series as a multi-stage missile was surface launched. The air-launched Standard missiles that were used in the anti-radiation role for a while dispensed with the booster. Similarly, air-launched Harpoon and air-launched Tomahawk, before it was canceled (some say partly due to Air Force lobbying), both dispensed with their booster stages.

I don't know if they've got to the point yet where they have definitively decided the propulsion method for JDRADM, many pictures seem to be notional. Could be start/stop rocket, integral rocket/ramjet or something else entirely. If I had had the opportunity to talk to Boeing this weekend I sure would have asked (did get to talk to F-35 folks, though). I just hope JDRADM actually sees the light of day. Again, I suspect detailed discussion of this weapon deserves its own thread.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Well, Boeing is 2.5 years into a planned 4 year development cycle for the DRADM-T portion of the JDRADM development.

DRADM-T focuses on the missile's propulsion and control systems.

http://www.mil-embedded.com/news/Contracts/6638

According to the chart in post 113 we should see a JDRADM Tech Demo from Boeing sometime in later 2009 or early 2010.

 

[Triton]

Lockheed Martin/Boeing/P&W F-22 Naval Variant ('A/F-22X')

Type: Two-seat naval strike/attack fighter

Program: Private venture by Lockheed ASC/Boeing/Lockheed Fort Worth; derived from F-22/NATF/A/F-X contracts. NATF and A/F-X cancelled and Lockheed's concept exploration and development contracts expired on December 17, 1993; Lockheed further refined design to A/F-22X as possible Grumman A-6 Intruder replacement;to await USN decision on follow-on to A/F-X.

Design features: Incorporates variable geometry and thrust vectoring; similar in size to Grumman F-14 Tomcat; folded size slightly larger than McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet; low-observable concept with four internal weapons bays. Almost 20 percent parts commonality with F-22 Raptor; 50 percent technology commonality. Leading-edge sweepback 16 degrees (fully forward) to 71 degrees (fully sweep); oversweep for carrier stowage, 77 degrees; horizontal tail sweepback, 55 degrees; vertical tail sweepback, 60 degrees; vertical tails divergence, 60 degrees.

Power plant: Two 112.5 kN (25,300 lb st) Pratt & Whitney PW7000 turbofans (developed from F-22's F119) with thrust vectoring.

Armament: Internal stowage for weapons up to size of Boeing AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile.

Dimensions external
Wing span, fully forward: 20.62 m (67 ft 8 in)
fully swept: 11.33 m (37 ft 2 in)
Length overall: 18.80 m (61 ft 8 in)
Height overall: 4.52 m (14 ft 10 in)

Source: Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1995-96 edited by Paul Jackson, Jane's Information Group Limited, 1995

Photographs of wind tunnel model of "A/F-22X" proposal.

Artist's impressions of "A/F-22X" proposal.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I had always wondered about the source of the artwork, my only complaint is again the ridiculously small radome compared to that of the F-14, F-22, or earlier NATF proposal.

During the NATF, A-X, and A/F-X programs were there any notable advancements in variable-sweep wing tech that would have cut back on maintenance and weight? Much of the criticism of the F-14, F-111, and B-1 is focused on this aspect of their design.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Power plant: Two 112.5 kN (25,300 lb st) Pratt & Whitney PW7000 turbofans (developed from F-22's F119) with thrust vectoring.

Isn't that a bit low? Or is that figure for dry power only?
The standard F119 delivers about 155+ kN with afterburner...

Very nice artwork btw!

 

[Triton]

Power plant: Two 112.5 kN (25,300 lb st) Pratt & Whitney PW7000 turbofans (developed from F-22's F119) with thrust vectoring.

Isn't that a bit low? Or is that figure for dry power only?
The standard F119 delivers about 155+ kN with afterburner...

Verified the number. According to Jane's Aero-Engines Jan 27, 2009:

Possible military engine of the next decade. US military designation not yet allocated. This engine for future supersonic military aircraft is being derived from the Pratt & Whitney F119. According to unofficial reports it is expected to have a slightly lower thrust rating, and to be designed for minimum fuel burn and minimum emissions.

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Aero-Engines/Pratt--Whitney-PW7000-United-States.html

 

[donnage99]

I wonder even with such engines, Lockheed's A/F-X would still be able to supercruise to a certain extend with wings swept all the way back?

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Lockheed, Boeing, and Grumman AF/X concept.

 

[Sundog]

I had always wondered about the source of the artwork, my only complaint is again the ridiculously small radome compared to that of the F-14, F-22, or earlier NATF proposal.

The F-22's nose isn't that big, so I would assume the A/F-X program would have a fixed AESA RADAR like the F-22s and therefore wouldn't need a large nose that allows for mechanical movement. That was done in older fighters to allow the antenna to scan. AESA RADAR's accomplish that electronically, although some modern fighters are still mounting the AESA radar such that it can rotate mechanically to get a larger scan range. Of course, in the case of the F-22, I believe some of the AESA RADAR's antenna's are on the sides of the forward fuselage, so there is also the possibility that A/F-X design was using a distributed antenna array as well.

 

[Triton]

Line drawing of McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics A/F-X proposal. Essentially an amended Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA)
A-12 Avenger II.

 

[donnage99]

Triton, all these images you posted are found in Matej's website, in which he linked to back on page 1:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2150.msg20137.html#msg20137

 

[TinWing]

Power plant: Two 112.5 kN (25,300 lb st) Pratt & Whitney PW7000 turbofans (developed from F-22's F119) with thrust vectoring.

Isn't that a bit low? Or is that figure for dry power only?
The standard F119 delivers about 155+ kN with afterburner...

Actually, the figure is fairly impressive for an engine in the same class as the GE F414?

 

[Triton]

Triton, all these images you posted are found in Matej's website, in which he linked to back on page 1:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2150.msg20137.html#msg20137

True, but these images are larger and did not come from Matej's website. It is not my intention to waste bandwidth and storage space on the Secret Projects server. I understand that one of the goal's of the forum is that it can serve as an archive for years to come for drawings, artwork, and information concerning unbuilt projects. For example, Flateric has been encouraging that Members use attachments rather than hotlinking to a third-party image hosting site because these links may become dead.

If you believe that the images I have attached do not add value to the forum, may be common place, and/or waste forum resources, then feel free to report my post to a Moderator or Overscan. I will defer to their judgment.

 

[Matej]

I agree. If you have larger and/or better quality images, attach them here. It is always better choice to delete something what is unnecessary than to don't have something, what is interesting.

 

[F-14D]

Power plant: Two 112.5 kN (25,300 lb st) Pratt & Whitney PW7000 turbofans (developed from F-22's F119) with thrust vectoring.

Isn't that a bit low? Or is that figure for dry power only?
The standard F119 delivers about 155+ kN with afterburner...

Verified the number. According to Jane's Aero-Engines Jan 27, 2009:

Possible military engine of the next decade. US military designation not yet allocated. This engine for future supersonic military aircraft is being derived from the Pratt & Whitney F119. According to unofficial reports it is expected to have a slightly lower thrust rating, and to be designed for minimum fuel burn and minimum emissions.

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Aero-Engines/Pratt--Whitney-PW7000-United-States.html

Remember, A/FX was a strike aircraft with secondary fighter capability, while NATF was the reverse. For A/FX, they probably didn't think they needed the blazing performance bestowed by the highre-thrust F119s, and traded off thrust for stealth, range and engine life.

 

[elmayerle]

The Navy used a two stage system very successfully (SM series of missiles), and has for many years.

A ramjet combo has it's own set of problems, which is why the Meteor is STILL not in operation.

Wasn't trying to force ramjet down anyone's throat. BTW, I suspect it would not be a rocket-ramjet combo, but rather an integral rocket/ramjet. The Soviets/Russians have known how to do that for decades. Meteor is not in operation not because it's a ramjet but because it's subject to the vagaries that are universal to posturing politicians.

Not just the Russians, LTV demonstrated the same capability back in the early seventies with the ALVRJ tests but no one wanted to build operational hardware from that.

 

[F-14D]

The Navy used a two stage system very successfully (SM series of missiles), and has for many years.

A ramjet combo has it's own set of problems, which is why the Meteor is STILL not in operation.

Wasn't trying to force ramjet down anyone's throat. BTW, I suspect it would not be a rocket-ramjet combo, but rather an integral rocket/ramjet. The Soviets/Russians have known how to do that for decades. Meteor is not in operation not because it's a ramjet but because it's subject to the vagaries that are universal to posturing politicians.

Not just the Russians, LTV demonstrated the same capability back in the early seventies with the ALVRJ tests but no one wanted to build operational hardware from that.

True. We did six test flights from 1974-76. Got to give the Russians more credit, though, since they had an operational system as far back as 1967.

 

[donnage99]

found from these guys' company website:
http://www.advancedtechnologiesinc.com/default.asp

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Has the Navy ever pushed to ressurect the A/F-X program or for a true successor to it? Would the aircraft's focus have shifted (F/A-X?) if they did? It looks as if the Navy has been less than thrilled with the F-35C, does the missing strike capabilites that would have been provided by the A-12, A-X, or A/F-X play into that?

Looking at the contractor teams again, why did Lockheed and others team up for three or more different proposals and thus compete against themselves? It seems very unusual. Perhaps it was an improvement over the somewhat forced pairings for the A-12 program, but it still looks like a mess.

 

[donnage99]

Has the Navy ever pushed to ressurect the A/F-X program or for a true successor to it? Would the aircraft's focus have shifted (F/A-X?) if they did? It looks as if the Navy has been less than thrilled with the F-35C, does the missing strike capabilites that would have been provided by the A-12, A-X, or A/F-X play into that?

It's called F/A-XX. And where did u get the information that Navy has been less thrilled about f-35C? I'm interested in that.

Looking at the contractor teams again, why did Lockheed and others team up for three or more different proposals and thus compete against themselves? It seems very unusual. Perhaps it was an improvement over the somewhat forced pairings for the A-12 program, but it still looks like a mess.

That way, it would increases the options for the customers to choose from. And from a contractor's point of view, it's a low risk approach, as it increases the chance for them to be in the down selection as they have their legs in more than one proposal.

This is nothing new. Back in the ATF program, Lockheed, Boeing, and GE teamed up with each seperately proposal from each company. The deal is that which ever proposal get selected, the company that is responsible for that proposal would be the team leader.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

It's called F/A-XX. And where did u get the information that Navy has been less thrilled about f-35C? I'm interested in that.

That would make sense, but isn't F/A-XX scheduled for an IOC of 2025? Regarding the F-35C, I shouldn't have sounded so definite, it is just that interest in new batches of Super Hornets (and Boeing is taking advantage of this by proposing Block III upgrades) has some thinking the Navy is a bit on the fence about the whole thing.

That way, it would increases the options for the customers to choose from. And from a contractor's point of view, it's a low risk approach, as it increases the chance for them to be in the down selection as they have their legs in more than one proposal.

I see, but why did they move away from this pattern for the JAST/JSF program?

 

[SOC]

By the time of JSF, there were a lot fewer contractors, weren't there?

 

[donnage99]

And remember that the early days of A-X and A/F-X period was a time when the Navy was just putting it on the table that they need something. Contractors just propose all kinds of stuff from flying wings to delta/canard to see which one the Navy would like to persue further, thus you have each contractor having its legs in many different proposals. The Navy wasn't saying "here are 40 requirements you have to meet." It's more like "alright, so I have these empty spots on the carrier deck and roles to be filled, let's see what u guys can come up with."

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Certainly an interesting choice by the Navy, and they certainly got quite a variety of offerings, even if details on most of these proposals are lacking. I imagine they would have leaned towards a supersonic design considering the change from A-X to A/F-X. But did any official down-selection occur before the program was cancelled?

 

[sublight]

..And where did u get the information that Navy has been less thrilled about f-35C? I'm interested in that.

Read "The Pentagon Paradox". http://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-Paradox-Development-F-18-Hornet/dp/1557507759

The Navy has a long history of covertly sabotaging anything tainted with Air Force development. The F-35C would be no different....

 

[donnage99]

The story of Navy's reaction to the f-111 or f-16/f-18 debate can be used in the f-35c as a possibility for Navy's rejection in the future, but not a garantee as you seem to make it out ot be. The reason is there are many fundamental differences with the Navy this time.
-Unlike the past, the navy seems to be commited to getting their version of f-35c.
-They do not have any alternative of getting a multirole 5th generation stealth aircraft.
-If their high end fighter right now is the super hornet. That says alot about the compromises the navy was willing to make.
-The navy today put alot of emphasis on commonality for affordability. Scrapping the f-35c and go on another Navy exclusive program to get their dedicated aircraft is simply unaffordable.
-Fighter aircraft engineering has advanced enough to blend different requirements into one single airframe and still make it work. This is a statement that the JSF team had to prove to the Navy, Air Force, and Marines during the early days of the program. And they did, though only with words.
-Conclusion: It all depends on how well the f-35c turns out to be with its actual performance on the carrier decks. This will determine the Navy's either support or rejection of the f-35c. Any notion that the rejection is a warrantee is simply false.

 

[Mike OTDP]

I wouldn't say the Navy is committed to F-35C. They are willing to give it a hearing...but are aware of the cost.

Remember, the Navy has a portion of the highly defended target problem handled by Tomahawks. LO isn't considered the end-all the USAF thinks it to be. JSF was always a matter of the Navy being told that this was the only TACAIR game in town and to make the best of it.

 

[donnage99]

I wouldn't say the Navy is committed to F-35C. They are willing to give it a hearing...but are aware of the cost.

"WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy needs the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter's fifth-generation capabilities, said the service's acting director of air warfare May 24.
Navy Rear Adm. Michael C. Manazir spoke to reporters because he wanted to "completely dispel the rumor that the Navy is soft on F-35C.""
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=53637

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I hope the Navy gets the F-35C and I hope the whole F-35 program works out well, but hasn't the same "commitment" to a program been stated by the Army and other services shortly before said program gets cancelled?

 

[sublight]

...Any notion that the rejection is a warrantee is simply false.

I think you meant to say "guarantee", and I agree that a rejection isn't guaranteed. However, the Navy's history of "anti air force" behavior is of legendary proportions as documented in that book....

 

[donnage99]

I hope the Navy gets the F-35C and I hope the whole F-35 program works out well, but hasn't the same "commitment" to a program been stated by the Army and other services shortly before said program gets cancelled?

Got cancelled by the Secretary of Defense or the Army?

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

^^that doesn't say it will always happen in the unforeseen future. We don't even know what's the outcome of the F-35C development.

anyway, back to topic, anyone?

 

[flateric]

...

 

[donnage99]

Where, I may ask?

 

[Creative]

That is a beautiful picture, thanks for sharing.

 

[flateric]

Where, I may ask?

www.codeonemagazine.com

 

[flateric]

quite a rarity - McDonnell Douglas-LTV and Lockheed-BoeingA/F-X logos

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Boeing AX model.

http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Test_455:_Boeing_AX

 

[donnage99]

Are these Boeing or team Lockheed/Boeing ?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Looks like Lockheed/Boeing to me.