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

phrenzy said:
starviking said:
RyanCrierie said:
Lasers have also shot down artillery shells, which spin at around 1,600+ RPM and are relatively thick walled, solid construction items compared to say, missile bodies.
Click to expand...


I think the attack geometry makes an artillery shell shoot-down easier, as most energy is going to be absorbed by the front of the shell, if the laser is acting in point defence.


Other factors would be beam footprint and intensity. If the beam's intensity and footprint are big enough spinning will make little difference, as half the shell will be absorbing beam energy at any time. With a ballistic missile, beam footprint is likely to be smaller, making rotation more effective. If it is liquid fuelled there will also be a heat-sink effect.
Click to expand...

true but the distances involved in an air to air fighter laser interception might be a little closer.

I wonder how effective a DEW attack directly against the pilot in the cockpit would be? I know lasers for the purpose of binding are banned by treaty but would you really need that much energy to scald a pilot to the point of taking them out of the fight?
The introduction of lasers might end up bringing about the end of the mark 1 eyeball for any use beyond looking around an enclosed cockpit. Even if lasers aren't introduced for the purpose of attacking the pilot the risk of burns or blindness might be very real.

Maybe they will go back to the cold war tactic of sending pilots out in operations with an eye patch so if they are blinded in one eye they can calmly take the patch off and fly on the remaining eye.
Click to expand...


The last public British V/Stoll strike project made this assumption...
 
http://defensetech.org/2014/11/20/navy-plans-for-fighter-to-replace-the-fa-18-hornet-in-2030s/#more-24131
 
How old is this presentation? It still shows RATTLRS and it's been dead for years.
 
Whatever else they do, they need to build something NOW and get it flying in the next five years. Tossed together on the cheap, with the best off-the-shelf technology that they can sell to allies without hesitation at a rock-bottom price. The chief designer needs to channel Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann (more the latter), and to carry a bullwhip wrapped around the gonads of the current and next President and Secretary of Defence to ensure the thing gets built and sold.


There is no other choice. It's that or let themselves get lost in the la-la land of concept studies while America's enemies keep on building things. They need to re-learn the art of committing themselves to hardware. The American Secret Projects books of the late 21st Century could end up being like the BSPs we have today - predominantly filled with things that never got past concept and the occasional rarity that got as far as a mock-up or (even worse) with the prototype cancelled halfway down the production line.
 
sferrin said:
How old is this presentation? It still shows RATTLRS and it's been dead for years.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the pic of a RATTLRS on page 18, it is there to represent a target of SACM, not what SACM is (which is CUDA).
 
SpudmanWP said:
sferrin said:
How old is this presentation? It still shows RATTLRS and it's been dead for years.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the pic of a RATTLRS on page 18, it is there to represent a target of SACM, not what SACM is (which is CUDA).
Click to expand...

Yeah. Seems like an odd choice for an illustration given there are about a million pics of Russian/Chinese aircraft with cruise missiles.
 
sferrin said:
SpudmanWP said:
sferrin said:
How old is this presentation? It still shows RATTLRS and it's been dead for years.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the pic of a RATTLRS on page 18, it is there to represent a target of SACM, not what SACM is (which is CUDA).
Click to expand...

Yeah. Seems like an odd choice for an illustration given there are about a million pics of Russian/Chinese aircraft with cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

They also have an image from Lockheed's Air-Launched Hit To Kill proposal which I think is the genesis of CUDA/SACM.
 
sferrin said:
SpudmanWP said:
sferrin said:
How old is this presentation? It still shows RATTLRS and it's been dead for years.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the pic of a RATTLRS on page 18, it is there to represent a target of SACM, not what SACM is (which is CUDA).
Click to expand...

Yeah. Seems like an odd choice for an illustration given there are about a million pics of Russian/Chinese aircraft with cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

The implication seems to be that someone has already successfully reverse engineered RATTLRS, most likely the PRC.
 
Grey Havoc said:
sferrin said:
SpudmanWP said:
sferrin said:
How old is this presentation? It still shows RATTLRS and it's been dead for years.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the pic of a RATTLRS on page 18, it is there to represent a target of SACM, not what SACM is (which is CUDA).
Click to expand...

Yeah. Seems like an odd choice for an illustration given there are about a million pics of Russian/Chinese aircraft with cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

The implication seems to be that someone has already successfully reverse engineered RATTLRS, most likely the PRC.
Click to expand...

That's quite a stretch there. Most likely the local graphics guy grabbed the first picture he could find of a plane launching a missile.
 
If you look at the graphics in "how A2AD impacts capability" you'll see LM NGAD design...straightened by paralay.
So yeah i wouldn't take the illustration too seriously
 
pathology_doc said:
Whatever else they do, they need to build something NOW and get it flying in the next five years. Tossed together on the cheap, with the best off-the-shelf technology that they can sell to allies without hesitation at a rock-bottom price. The chief designer needs to channel Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann (more the latter), and to carry a bullwhip wrapped around the gonads of the current and next President and Secretary of Defence to ensure the thing gets built and sold.


There is no other choice. It's that or let themselves get lost in the la-la land of concept studies while America's enemies keep on building things. They need to re-learn the art of committing themselves to hardware. The American Secret Projects books of the late 21st Century could end up being like the BSPs we have today - predominantly filled with things that never got past concept and the occasional rarity that got as far as a mock-up or (even worse) with the prototype cancelled halfway down the production line.
Click to expand...


The problem is since the fall of the USSR there hasn't been a boogie man in the closet to worry about, in the minds of the elected leadership. The b2 was a great aircraft to replace the buff and to fill its role decades after the last buff landed at Davis. But nope. No USSR no new bomber to replace the then 40 year old boeing. Metal fatigue and spare parts be damned, advances in air defenses around the world be damned, gotta keep me flying for another 20 years (now even longer). The same happened to the -22.


Instead we get the dubious v-22, and a light attack bomber with the ability to defend itself. Meanwhile the rest of the world continues on with their own super cruising stealthy fighters.


It used to be we'd let the bad guys have a better rifle. Now we're letting them have better aircraft.
 
tacitblue said:
pathology_doc said:
Whatever else they do, they need to build something NOW and get it flying in the next five years. Tossed together on the cheap, with the best off-the-shelf technology that they can sell to allies without hesitation at a rock-bottom price. The chief designer needs to channel Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann (more the latter), and to carry a bullwhip wrapped around the gonads of the current and next President and Secretary of Defence to ensure the thing gets built and sold.


There is no other choice. It's that or let themselves get lost in the la-la land of concept studies while America's enemies keep on building things. They need to re-learn the art of committing themselves to hardware. The American Secret Projects books of the late 21st Century could end up being like the BSPs we have today - predominantly filled with things that never got past concept and the occasional rarity that got as far as a mock-up or (even worse) with the prototype cancelled halfway down the production line.
Click to expand...


The problem is since the fall of the USSR there hasn't been a boogie man in the closet to worry about, in the minds of the elected leadership. The b2 was a great aircraft to replace the buff and to fill its role decades after the last buff landed at Davis. But nope. No USSR no new bomber to replace the then 40 year old boeing. Metal fatigue and spare parts be damned, advances in air defenses around the world be damned, gotta keep me flying for another 20 years (now even longer). The same happened to the -22.


Instead we get the dubious v-22, and a light attack bomber with the ability to defend itself. Meanwhile the rest of the world continues on with their own super cruising stealthy fighters.


It used to be we'd let the bad guys have a better rifle. Now we're letting them have better aircraft.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the overall sentiment, the so-called Peace Dividend absolutely gutted our nuclear systems and we may never recover as now modernization is said to be too expensive (which is BS but a debate for another day), I do think you're more negative than necessary. While it would have been nice to have 132 B-2 and 400 F-22 (that would have been really cool) you must remember the US is on its 4th generation of stealth aircraft while China and Russia are flying little more than technological demonstrators IMHO.

As importantly, or maybe more importantly, the USAF CoS said the US, not only has the platforms, but over 20 years experience in integrated air operations with these platforms. If you've been driving a VW Beetle and someone gives you an F1 race car you aren't going to be winning races for a long time.

That is of course not to say I am totally optimistic as the US continues to cut defense (almost all from modernization accounts) what you wrote may in fact come to pass in the next 20 years.
 
bobbymike said:
tacitblue said:
pathology_doc said:
Whatever else they do, they need to build something NOW and get it flying in the next five years. Tossed together on the cheap, with the best off-the-shelf technology that they can sell to allies without hesitation at a rock-bottom price. The chief designer needs to channel Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann (more the latter), and to carry a bullwhip wrapped around the gonads of the current and next President and Secretary of Defence to ensure the thing gets built and sold.


There is no other choice. It's that or let themselves get lost in the la-la land of concept studies while America's enemies keep on building things. They need to re-learn the art of committing themselves to hardware. The American Secret Projects books of the late 21st Century could end up being like the BSPs we have today - predominantly filled with things that never got past concept and the occasional rarity that got as far as a mock-up or (even worse) with the prototype cancelled halfway down the production line.
Click to expand...


The problem is since the fall of the USSR there hasn't been a boogie man in the closet to worry about, in the minds of the elected leadership. The b2 was a great aircraft to replace the buff and to fill its role decades after the last buff landed at Davis. But nope. No USSR no new bomber to replace the then 40 year old boeing. Metal fatigue and spare parts be damned, advances in air defenses around the world be damned, gotta keep me flying for another 20 years (now even longer). The same happened to the -22.


Instead we get the dubious v-22, and a light attack bomber with the ability to defend itself. Meanwhile the rest of the world continues on with their own super cruising stealthy fighters.


It used to be we'd let the bad guys have a better rifle. Now we're letting them have better aircraft.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the overall sentiment, the so-called Peace Dividend absolutely gutted our nuclear systems and we may never recover as now modernization is said to be too expensive (which is BS but a debate for another day), I do think you're more negative than necessary. While it would have been nice to have 132 B-2 and 400 F-22 (that would have been really cool) you must remember the US is on its 4th generation of stealth aircraft while China and Russia are flying little more than technological demonstrators IMHO.

As importantly, or maybe more importantly, the USAF CoS said the US, not only has the platforms, but over 20 years experience in integrated air operations with these platforms. If you've been driving a VW Beetle and someone gives you an F1 race car you aren't going to be winning races for a long time.

That is of course not to say I am totally optimistic as the US continues to cut defense (almost all from modernization accounts) what you wrote may in fact come to pass in the next 20 years.
Click to expand...


The problem is that the bad guys aren't starting from scratch with their first gen stealthy fighters. Publicly it is known about the chunese engineer who handed the chinese government the design of portions of the b2. The publicized accounts of stolen -35 secrets. Who knows what was taken from the atf program 25 years ago. Who knows about other theft of secrets. They ain't starting from a blank sheet.
 
tacitblue said:
bobbymike said:
tacitblue said:
pathology_doc said:
Whatever else they do, they need to build something NOW and get it flying in the next five years. Tossed together on the cheap, with the best off-the-shelf technology that they can sell to allies without hesitation at a rock-bottom price. The chief designer needs to channel Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann (more the latter), and to carry a bullwhip wrapped around the gonads of the current and next President and Secretary of Defence to ensure the thing gets built and sold.


There is no other choice. It's that or let themselves get lost in the la-la land of concept studies while America's enemies keep on building things. They need to re-learn the art of committing themselves to hardware. The American Secret Projects books of the late 21st Century could end up being like the BSPs we have today - predominantly filled with things that never got past concept and the occasional rarity that got as far as a mock-up or (even worse) with the prototype cancelled halfway down the production line.
Click to expand...


The problem is since the fall of the USSR there hasn't been a boogie man in the closet to worry about, in the minds of the elected leadership. The b2 was a great aircraft to replace the buff and to fill its role decades after the last buff landed at Davis. But nope. No USSR no new bomber to replace the then 40 year old boeing. Metal fatigue and spare parts be damned, advances in air defenses around the world be damned, gotta keep me flying for another 20 years (now even longer). The same happened to the -22.


Instead we get the dubious v-22, and a light attack bomber with the ability to defend itself. Meanwhile the rest of the world continues on with their own super cruising stealthy fighters.


It used to be we'd let the bad guys have a better rifle. Now we're letting them have better aircraft.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the overall sentiment, the so-called Peace Dividend absolutely gutted our nuclear systems and we may never recover as now modernization is said to be too expensive (which is BS but a debate for another day), I do think you're more negative than necessary. While it would have been nice to have 132 B-2 and 400 F-22 (that would have been really cool) you must remember the US is on its 4th generation of stealth aircraft while China and Russia are flying little more than technological demonstrators IMHO.

As importantly, or maybe more importantly, the USAF CoS said the US, not only has the platforms, but over 20 years experience in integrated air operations with these platforms. If you've been driving a VW Beetle and someone gives you an F1 race car you aren't going to be winning races for a long time.

That is of course not to say I am totally optimistic as the US continues to cut defense (almost all from modernization accounts) what you wrote may in fact come to pass in the next 20 years.
Click to expand...


The problem is that the bad guys aren't starting from scratch with their first gen stealthy fighters. Publicly it is known about the chunese engineer who handed the chinese government the design of portions of the b2. The publicized accounts of stolen -35 secrets. Who knows what was taken from the atf program 25 years ago. Who knows about other theft of secrets. They ain't starting from a blank sheet.
Click to expand...

Why I added the second paragraph in my original post and added a timeline if things don't change. China and Russia have not had large scale integrated air operations WITH THEIR existing fleets of aircraft let alone integrated stealth platforms into them. Within the next year or two the F-35C will have more 'at sea' testing than China has in its whole history now add to the fact that the US has 60+ years of carrier ops in real world combat.

I was not dismissing what you said only adding that building a few advanced platforms is a long, long way from warfighting.
 
Very cool presentation, thanks for sharing. I love the concepts for SACM-T (CUDA) and it sounds like they're looking to achieve AMRAAM type range but I'm curious as to why it's supposed to be a AMRAAM compliment. Perhaps the range goals are more analogous to early AMRAAM iterations. While none of the future platform depictions are probably representative of working designs I like this one:


I'm willing to be good money that the F-X and maybe the F/A-XX will end up looking similar to this one. Tailess cranked delta type configuration. Should be extremely stealthy and have very good all aspect VLO/ELO. Should also be able to carry tons of gas which is what will be needed for the pacific. Mostly likely will be twin engine I'm guessing.
 
This one, actually, should represent a bomber.
 
Tailless cranked deltas aren't exactly known for their maneuverability.
There's nothing like a tail to generate pitching moments, not even thrust vectoring (which is only in 2D anyway on all VLO tailless aircraft to date)
 
AeroFranz said:
There's nothing like a tail to generate pitching moments, not even thrust vectoring (which is only in 2D anyway on all VLO tailless aircraft to date)
Click to expand...

Really? The impression I've gotten from the open technical literature is that TVC can generate pitching moments
equivalent to conventional pitch effectors though perhaps only at thrust settings that are inimical to range and/or signature.

Surely that third airstream in the ADVENT engine has some TVC applicability.
 
He's talking about pitching moments though; the issue with the layout is that your center of gravity, lift and pressure are quite rearward, meaning that any pitch generator, whether it be elevators or thrust vectoring, in the rear of the aircraft can't generate that much torque. If you had canards it'd be a different story, but that's not the planform being presented.
 
marauder2048 said:
AeroFranz said:
There's nothing like a tail to generate pitching moments, not even thrust vectoring (which is only in 2D anyway on all VLO tailless aircraft to date)
Click to expand...

Really? The impression I've gotten from the open technical literature is that TVC can generate pitching moments
equivalent to conventional pitch effectors though perhaps only at thrust settings that are inimical to range and/or signature.

Surely that third airstream in the ADVENT engine has some TVC applicability.
Click to expand...


Look at the Northrop VATOL design. It was designed to be a fighter and has 3D TV, however, as you get to higher and higher alpha, the nozzles have a limited ability to pitch the aircraft since you you have a much more limited range you can vector the thrust than you can pitch a horizontal tail or canard. So their alpha capability is limited, not unlimited like most modern fighters with a conventional tail or a canard. In fact, the Northrop VATOL design was limited to 7g as a result of only using TV for pitch control. Of course, they did that to minimize weight for the vertical landing aspect of the flight envelope and to control the aircraft in that flight regime.
 
If this story reflects something approaching reality, that would explain the repeated need to increase weapon count aboard stealth aircraft:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/pentagon-worries-that-russia-can-now-outshoot-u-s-stealth-jets.html

Summary: Unnamed USAF sources say that digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) are very effective against AMRAAMs. This has dramatically reduced expected Pk, creating a payload crisis for stealth fighters. Your mileage on the scale of the crisis will vary.

For NGAD, that suggests the need for a big payload, either through smaller missiles or through large aircraft. The larger aircraft fits the need for Pacific combat.
 
DrRansom said:
If this story reflects something approaching reality, that would explain the repeated need to increase weapon count aboard stealth aircraft:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/pentagon-worries-that-russia-can-now-outshoot-u-s-stealth-jets.html

Summary: Unnamed USAF sources say that digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) are very effective against AMRAAMs. This has dramatically reduced expected Pk, creating a payload crisis for stealth fighters. Your mileage on the scale of the crisis will vary.

For NGAD, that suggests the need for a big payload, either through smaller missiles or through large aircraft. The larger aircraft fits the need for Pacific combat.
Click to expand...


Is this an issue with the MBDA Meteor BVRAAM? I also wonder if we might see B-1B bomber aircraft refitted into missile trucks like the Boeing B-1R proposal.
 
I'd think the simplest way around something like this would be a dual-mode seeker or HOJ functionality.
 
DrRansom said:
If this story reflects something approaching reality, that would explain the repeated need to increase weapon count aboard stealth aircraft:
Click to expand...


No. This has been a general trend for quite some time: smaller weapons mean more aim points per sortie.
 
BDF said:
While none of the future platform depictions are probably representative of working designs I like this one:
Click to expand...

I like it, too. And it looks like a generic model layout from a NG's paper about ESAV of few years ago.
 

Attachments

  • ng_esav.png
    ng_esav.png
    696.3 KB · Views: 398
Triton said:
DrRansom said:
If this story reflects something approaching reality, that would explain the repeated need to increase weapon count aboard stealth aircraft:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/pentagon-worries-that-russia-can-now-outshoot-u-s-stealth-jets.html

Summary: Unnamed USAF sources say that digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) are very effective against AMRAAMs. This has dramatically reduced expected Pk, creating a payload crisis for stealth fighters. Your mileage on the scale of the crisis will vary.

For NGAD, that suggests the need for a big payload, either through smaller missiles or through large aircraft. The larger aircraft fits the need for Pacific combat.
Click to expand...


Is this an issue with the MBDA Meteor BVRAAM? I also wonder if we might see B-1B bomber aircraft refitted into missile trucks like the Boeing B-1R proposal.
Click to expand...

I've always liked the anti-air truck. Here's a MALD truck in the form of a C-17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0acJ3xyhaJo
 
sferrin said:
I'd think the simplest way around something like this would be a dual-mode seeker or HOJ functionality.
Click to expand...

I don't know if HOJ would work, as that still requires the missile to distinguish between the jammer signals and a radar return. Passive HOJ won't work as the jammer doesn't transmit until it detects an incoming active radar pulse.

Dual-mode seeker with radar / IR is likely the best way, or just scrap the radar seeker head altogether and do long range mid-course guidance IR seeker. The latter is a relatively extreme example.


Quellish - There was a push to increase ground aimpoints per sortie, but this is A to A aimpoints, and 8 missiles on an interceptor is about standard for the last four decades. Going higher is unusual.
 
A couple points to consider:


  • Active aeroelastic control technology and thrust vectoring (fluidic most likely) may overcome many maneuver/agility limitations of a cranked delta. That being said it's unlikely that it will have the high AoA performance of today's 5th gen deigns.
  • 6th gen designs may not have the maneuver requirements that 5th gen designs do today. With cooperative engagement technologies and DEW coming online the need for slow, higher AoA maneuvers should go way down. This is especially true if DEW can pan out to at least destroy enemy air at WVR type ranges. I think where maneuverability may still be important is high Mach and altitudes where the need to change vector rapidly to avoid a counter shot will be important (cranking.)
 
In time where there's tension between 2 countries, you would see alot of intercept missions where the 2 opposing force come "eye to eye" in the sky. What if the situation turns sour and you are forced to engage in a classic WVR fight, are you screwed since you are only optimized for BVR combat?
 
marauder2048 said:
AeroFranz said:
There's nothing like a tail to generate pitching moments, not even thrust vectoring (which is only in 2D anyway on all VLO tailless aircraft to date)
Click to expand...

Really? The impression I've gotten from the open technical literature is that TVC can generate pitching moments
equivalent to conventional pitch effectors though perhaps only at thrust settings that are inimical to range and/or signature.

Surely that third airstream in the ADVENT engine has some TVC applicability.
Click to expand...


i'd be surprised if fluidic TV allowed the same stream deflection as a mechanical device. There are surely more severe limits on keeping the flow attached through large angles if you are using viscous phenomena/coanda effect or other aerodynamic tricks, than 'brute force' steering of the nozzle. Plus, i haven't seen fluidic nozzles designed for pitch control (but maybe there are?)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom