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

[Rlewis]

im willing to bet with enough digging i can find a rand report from the 1990s that talks about joint programs saving money. and there brilliant analysis proving it. and someone said "did you read the rand report? thats how I know this JSF idea is a good one" now with hindsight they will tell us how it doesn't. theory and practice are two different things. just because the jsf is a disaster does not mean that joint programs are not favorable. you would be hard pressed to actually find programs that are only funded by a single source these days honestly. the DOD is more than just the JSF even though lockmarty would have you think otherwise. I think there was a rand report about how the USN should cancel the F/A-18E and wait for the JSF that would be hitting the fleet in the early 2000s.

That doesn't validate anything. The simple logic to that is there's more evidence today than 20 years ago about modern joint program. And btw, did you read the report? It took into account all recent major programs whether it is single service or joint. JSF is but one of them

skipped this one actually. i try to fall back on my own experience with not just the us navy, but my experience in dealing with reports from outside and contrast that with my work and analsyts that barely scrape the surface but think they know my job better than i do. i'm not usually impressed with them. the purpose of a program is not always to save money either. dirty secret. its about pooling resources so we both get what we want. i have a hard time believing that when two services combine things instantly go pear shaped and you have to look at the technological risk inherent in the program. for example if the gyrenes had signed onto the super hornet. which they should have. i don't believe it would suddenly be astronomically expensive and delayed into eternity. the super hornet being a low risk development. now a helicopter that flies like a plane or a mach 1+ hovering stealth fighter; well thats a different story isn't it? a lot of these programs dont stink because they are joint, they stink because its a bridge too far for the tech available. in that case weather its one service [f-22] 2 services [v-22]or all 3 [jsf] its going to be costly and delayed with lots of redesigns. you can also look at single service [F-18EF] 2 service [ I want to say ch-53k but its still in development so thats cheating] which are progressive follow ons, and low risk. so in conclusion I would like to see ngad as joint. whether that helps or hurts basically depends on how advanced the design and tech will be. if it borrows from previous designs and is kept low risk it has a better chance than if the wheel is reinvented. so yes, i bet the randy boys figured out that advanced programs don't save. not all advanced programs are joint and not all joint programs are advanced.

 

[donnage99]

skipped this one actually. i try to fall back on my own experience with not just the us navy, but my experience in dealing with reports from outside and contrast that with my work and analsyts that barely scrape the surface but think they know my job better than i do. i'm not usually impressed with them.

Then read the report, it addressed the f-22 program as well and the so called technology risk you're talking about here as well. Don't criticize it before you actually read it.

 

[Triton]

I don't know how it is possible to quantify the political advantages of joint military development and acquisition programs. Though it seems that joint programs are much more difficult to cancel than single-service programs Adding an international partner to the project makes cancellation even more difficult.

 

[LowObservable]

Sir George Edwards (boss of BAC in the Concorde days) described international joint programs as "hell to get started and impossible to stop".

 

[donnage99]

did you read the report? It took into account all recent major programs whether it is single service or joint. JSF is but one of them

Did you? As already pointed out elsewhere on the forum, there are arguably distinct flaws in the analysis used in the report including the programs used as part of the analysis.

I did. The report did take into account the f-22. The cost overrun expressed in percentage associated with that program vs joint programs such as f-35. Anyone who brought up the technology factor as a counter argument pretty much didn't read the report. Because that's ONE of the point of the report- joint programs increase technological risk. This is really a waste of time arguing if people haven't read the report yet, since they wouldn't know what they are criticizing.

 

[sublight_]

I did. The report did take into account the f-22. The cost overrun expressed in percentage associated with that program vs joint programs such as f-35. Anyone who brought up the technology factor as a counter argument pretty much didn't read the report. Because that's ONE of the point of the report- joint programs increase technological risk. This is really a waste of time arguing if people haven't read the report yet, since they wouldn't know what they are criticizing.

Chuck Hagel, is that you???

 

[John21]

The other reason for "concurrency" is because so many airframes will be running out of hours due to the procurement holidays of the 90's and we needed to get the F-35 in the field ASAP.

Not really. The life extensions to the F-16 and F-15 fleets will add eight to ten years to each airframe. The F-15 "Long term" fleet is good until 2030.

I don't know if the F-16 upgrades will work out with this recent news of the cancellation of the CAPES program:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140127/DEFREG/301270023/F-16-Upgrade-Dropped-From-US-Budget-Proposal-Sources-Say

 

[Void]

Historically, services have entered joint aircraft programs with unique requirements resulting from different operating environments, missions, doctrine, and operational concepts. Attempts to accommodate these requirements within a common airframe can increase technical complexity and risk, thus prolonging RDT&E and driving up acquisition costs. The attempt to incorporate differing requirements in the same basic design also leads to excess functionality and weight, which, in turn, increases cost and risk.

There is a more obvious answer: Take all these decisions out of the hands of individual services.

If the fighter does not fit the doctrine, change the doctrine. These things do not grow on trees.

 

[flateric]

we haven't seen new concepts for a while...that's from 2012 ONR paper, was going next to second variant of Boeing F/A-XX they have shown to public
well, stop. we have seen this with minor variations before as F-X, but from the slightly other angle
now planform is more clear
[werd bird]

 

[Ogami musashi]

I somehow clicked in the tails would be moveable..got it right


Thanks

 

[Triton]

we haven't seen new concepts for a while...that's from 2012 ONR paper, was going next to second variant of Boeing F/A-XX they have shown to public
well, stop. we have seen this with minor variations before as F-X, but from the slightly other angle
now planform is more clear
[werd bird]

Thanks for the image, flateric.

 

[Kryptid]

Interesting. I once proposed just such a mobile tail design on F-16.net years ago.

It also reminds me of the variable tail concept by Dan Raymer (although it went from near-vertical to diagonal instead of horizontal to diagonal). He said analysis indicated that the performance pay-offs would not have been worth the weight penalty. Then again, Boeing may have found a way to reduce the weight.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Then again, Boeing may have found a way to reduce the weight.

Something akin to a memory alloy perhaps? Or even a dynamic composite?

 

[Sundog]

Interesting. I once proposed just such a mobile tail design on F-16.net years ago.

It also reminds me of the variable tail concept by Dan Raymer (although it went from near-vertical to diagonal instead of horizontal to diagonal). He said analysis indicated that the performance pay-offs would not have been worth the weight penalty. Then again, Boeing may have found a way to reduce the weight.

Partly, it depends on what you're calling the trade-offs. If you're talking about aerodynamics (drag) vs stability and control, it may not be worth the weight penalty. If you're talking about aerodynamics and stability and control vs L.O. signature, it might be worth it. The design objective has to be known first. Then we can determine how the trade offs serve to meet the objective.

 

[bobbymike]

Engine for Gen 6?

Air Force leaders say the service is preparing to launch a $1 billion new-start next-generation jet engine development program to be detailed in the upcoming fiscal year 2015 budget proposal. “What we’re looking at is adaptive engine technology. We think this is a big area for us to move into,” Ricky Peters, executive director, Air Force Research Laboratory told an audience Feb. 26 at the Bloomberg Government Defense Summit, Washington D.C. The roughly $1 billion in funding will span a five year period which will focus on developing, validating and demonstrating new engine technologies which increase speed, thrust and power while also improving fuel efficiency. The service’s current program, Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology, or ADVENT, advances a similar concept regarding what Peters referred to as adaptive engine technology. The effort is aimed at not only achieving far greater speeds in flight but combining that technology with fuel efficiency improvements and other performance enhancements. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel mentioned the new Air Force engine program in his Feb. 24 comments on the upcoming 2015 budget release. “We recommended investing one billion dollars in a promising next-generation jet engine technology which we expect to produce sizeable cost savings and reduce fuel consumption,” Hagel said. Hagel said the new engine technology program will also lower maintenance costs for aircraft and help preserve the industrial base.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Random observations.

The YF-23 probably lost the ATF competition because it was suitable as a long-range stealthy interceptor and ground-attack aircraft while the YF-22 was a better dogfighter - primarily because its airframe could endure such manoeuvres better (another post - my apologies for not referencing). The USAF obfuscated over their choice when the YF-23 seemed better (or at least more attractive, aesthetically), because that would have meant revealing too much about doctrine.

Now, with China perceived as a potential threat and the Pacific seen as the arena, the criteria have changed.

Main criteria are supercruise, stealth, range, networking, BVR combat instead of dogfighting, versatility (air to air and ground attack). Something a bit like a YF-23 in fact. The Boeing concepts we've seen, especially the one below, seem to fit that brief. It's a big, heavy machine and the inlets aren't optimum for high AOA, but it appears to depend on speed, stealth and range, and judging by there being only one pilot, a LOT of computing power.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Furthermore, I think that money needs to be spent on the next generation air-to-air missile systems. Assuming that Western forces are going to be ounumbered, I would think that the NGAD system (a manned command plane and several "missile truck" UAVs perhaps) will have to carry a lot of them, be able to engage many targets simultaneously at long range and that the missiles would have some way of bypassing the enemy's own stealth technology by networking with sophisticated sensor networks and by being able to receive updates in flight.

 

[Sundog]

The YF-23 probably lost the ATF competition because it was suitable as a long-range stealthy interceptor and ground-attack aircraft while the YF-22 was a better dogfighter - primarily because its airframe could endure such manoeuvres better (another post - my apologies for not referencing). The USAF obfuscated over their choice when the YF-23 seemed better (or at least more attractive, aesthetically), because that would have meant revealing too much about doctrine.

We've been over this before; Both the YF-22 and YF-23 met the maneuvering requirements for the ATF program and there were parts of the envelope where the YF-23 was more maneuverable than the YF-22. Where the YF-23 was going to lose to the YF-22 is in the airshow wars of cool maneuvers which don't really signify anything.

The main reason the YF-22 got the contract was due to Northrop's performance with regard to the B-2 program. Oh, the irony.

 

[Rhinocrates]

I was thinking of maintenance costs and metal fatigue affecting airframe lifetime - the big internal bays and big holes in the structure on the YF-23 could have been a factor in the AF's calculations. Anyway, that's my guess. Certainly there was no clear suggestion that the YF-23 was inferior in terms of performance or stealth.

 

[Steve Pace]

The late Lt. Gen. David J. "Marshall" McCloud who was on the ATF selection board told me the YF-22 was much more agile and that it didn't lose as much energy (speed) during maneuvers. Moreover, that Lockheed was better prepared in that it demonstrated missile firings whereas Northrop and its YF-23 did not. More food for thought. -SP

 

[Rhinocrates]

Where the YF-23 was going to lose to the YF-22 is in the airshow wars of cool maneuvers which don't really signify anything.

I agree. The design concept of the YF-23 was before its time. The main design criteria for NGAD, I believe, are going to be range, supercruise (hypercruise in the following generation, perhaps), networking and versatility. It won't be especially agile, but it will be a good missile and bomb truck and the missiles should themselves be advanced and it should carry more of them.


Maybe it's the missiles we need to think about?

 

[Sundog]

Maybe it's the missiles we need to think about?

I couldn't agree more.

 

[flateric]

I could be wrong, but the aircraft depicted looks extremely flat... and each of the wings highly disproportionate from the other.

Perhaps the image was distorted? Here is the same image reduced in width to 75% of the original and 50% of the original. Though the latter is obviously exaggerated, it does bring the wings to more of a similar size. Apart from the wings, the 75% version looks pretty good overall. Just my two cents.

planform view

 

[Sundog]

I think those are two different designs, but very similar. The one in the planform has the engines right next to each other, where as the lower image has them separated. Probably iterations of the same design as part of the optimization process.

 

[Sentinel36k]

Via Lockheed Martin, NGAD?

 

[bobbymike]

Via Lockheed Martin, NGAD?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21553.0.html

Look at 1:02 of this video it looks like the back section of this the prior post picture, or am I really straining credulity

 

[GTX]

All of these designs appear to be very large and also probably going to be operated in relatively small numbers...therefore very expensive.

 

[Blitzo]

All of these designs appear to be very large and also probably going to be operated in relatively small numbers...therefore very expensive.

All hail the death spiral!

 

[GTX]

I wouldn't say there needs to be a depth spiral. Just the reality that it would likely be very expensive. An observation if you will.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Hi-alt supercruise, long range, stealthy (obviously), I'm thinking. Big wings for both Boeing and Lockmart USAF versions, big volume for lots of fuel and payload.


The Chengdu J-20 isn't small either.


It looks like we're seeing a change of doctrine - and an understanding of that on both sides. It's the Pacific now, not Europe that's seen as the new theatre.

 

[dark sidius]

New picture of NGAD on Lockheed website ?

 

[sferrin]

See post 987 in this thread.

 

[dark sidius]

It look like a long range fighter.

 

[bobbymike]

From lockmart website

Can anyone estimate the size of this aircraft from the picture given that the cockpit is probably a constant from the F-22 to this?

 

[sferrin]

From lockmart website

Can anyone estimate the size of this aircraft from the picture given that the cockpit is probably a constant from the F-22 to this?

I'm wondering if it's a 2-man crew under than canopy. The frame position doesn't make sense otherwise. Consider, not only would it be a long range fighter/interceptor, it would also be a key node in the CEC network. (Thus the 2nd crewman.)

 

[dark sidius]

The wings look very large, and the exhaust is a new type with surely a new propulsion system. When we look the pictures I estimate the size in the 20 M class, it look more bigger than the F-22.

 

[flateric]

I'm wondering if it's a 2-man crew under than canopy. The frame position doesn't make sense otherwise. Consider, not only would it be a long range fighter/interceptor, it would also be a key node in the CEC network. (Thus the 2nd crewman.)

 

[sferrin]

So I guess it's really a 1-piece canopy with a frame? ??? (In other words, the whole thing goes when the pilot ejects.)

 

[Sentinel36k]

Size could be estimated if we knew what the dimensions of the helmet are, it looks like the f-35 helmet. I haven't been able to find the dimensions as helmet size depends on the size of the pilots head.

Sentinel

 

[Sentinel36k]

Assuming the helmet is around 1' I would guess the fuselage is close to 82' with a wingspan of 50-55'.

Sentinel