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

donnage99 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Stuff like AIM-9X can maneuver tight enough to hit escorts at close range. With AIM-9X Block II and LOAL combined with an F-35s HMCS and DAS, it could pretty much hit anything in the sphere around the aircraft. A future air combat type of aircraft would be able to do the same.
 
Dragon029 said:
In small applications it has.
Click to expand...


Not to nit-pick, but the article didn't actually say what kind of roll rates or pitch rates you could get out of the system. Or bandwidth.
Don't get me wrong, fluidic vectoring is nice because it obviates the need for movable surfaces which have higher RCS - but that is why i suspect it is being investigated. If all you care about is being stealthy, then chances are you won't be trying to maneuver hard. This is why i think it's best suited to large stealthy platforms.


The article says the blowing occurs over a Coanda surface. If this is anything like the old Circulation-control wing (CCW), then the airfoil trailing edge is rounded and far from the ideal high-speed shape.
Furthermore, what is often neglected with boundary-layer control devices, is that the compressed air has to come from somewhere. It usually comes from one of the stages of the low pressure compressor in a turbofan or turbojet, so it's robbing mass flow from the thermodynamic cycle of the engine, and even if extracted from the first stages, it is hot enough to require high temperature ducting (heavy). Also. you need ducting going from the engine to whatever control surface is using it, which takes up volume.
At least that was the case with BLC devices such as those used by F-104s and Buccaneers. I confess i have not seen details of the installation, so it might differ from the picture i have in my mind.
 
Triton said:
Maybe
Click to expand...

Great video a purpose built anti-air missile truck could be a game changer as it is most certainly the case the US could possibly be 'outplatformed' in a future conflict.

I would even develop longer range missiles that could launch using off board sensors, as shown by the video, to fire well outside enemy missile range like NCADE or air launched Patriot, THAAD?
 
Triton said:
With 81 pages in this topic, it's easy to lose track of what, and what has not, been documented. :D
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly. Such long topics are a pain, especially since they are a mix of facts and images on one side, and lots of discussion (full of hypotheses and opinions) on the other. It would be best to have a "FACTS ONLY" topic and a "DISCUSSION ONLY" topic at this stage, though I believe the split to be performed at this stage would undoubtedly be a major headache for the mods.
 
Skyblazer said:
Triton said:
With 81 pages in this topic, it's easy to lose track of what, and what has not, been documented. :D
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly. Such long topics are a pain, especially since they are a mix of facts and images on one side, and lots of discussion (full of hypotheses and opinions) on the other. It would be best to have a "FACTS ONLY" topic and a "DISCUSSION ONLY" topic at this stage, though I believe the split to be performed at this stage would undoubtedly be a major headache for the mods.
Click to expand...

There is no easy solution with long threads so you have one thread with 1000 posts or three with 333 posts each you'd still be flipping back and forth, now, between three threads to find out what has been said or written.
 
Skyblazer said:
...It would be best to have a "FACTS ONLY" topic and a "DISCUSSION ONLY" topic at this stage...
Click to expand...

I know, with regards to the experiences we made here with some threads, it sounds rather gullible, but
principally it should be possible even to discuss facts ... ;)
I've just browsed through this thread and to me it looks, as if 3 threads wouldn't be enough, if we
really would split it. Many posts refer to more than just one other post and so in the end the readability
certainly would suffer. So I would appeal to all, who are posting here for reluctance and dispensation with
that kind of posts, that already killed some other threads !
( Just an excuse for not wanting to do that insane task of splitting this thread, of course .. ;) )
 
Maybe a page for discussing NGAD theory (e.g. threat environment, 6th generation characteristics) and another thread for NGAD programs (containing news reports, official documents, and presentations - but without much interpretation)?
 
A thread about 6th generation fighter characteristics, could be reasonable, I think, and
maybe would relieve this thread from posts, that are only marginally related to F/A-XX.
 
I agree, there are too many posts and reading it is difficult.
 
Problem is that this is both a discussion forum and archive. Frankly, these isn't much redundancy in the forums and how would you even begin to break up this topic into multiple topics?
 
Triton said:
Problem is that this is both a discussion forum and archive. Frankly, these isn't much redundancy in the forums and how would you even begin to break up this topic into multiple topics?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone said it would be an easy task—not even that it should be done. The idea was only discussed. I try to put myself in the place of someone looking for info on F/A-XX: dates, basic program outline, a few pics. Where do they begin to look in these 130 pages ? How do they set about doing it? For shorter topics, it is always possible to click on the "All" option and show all pages as one. But 130 pages?? That's likely to give your browser a very hard time!
 
I suppose a solution could be to lock this thread (give the active dates in the title line) and start two new ones with titles like - "likely tech to be employed" and "actual, real news". There you go - £0.02 of consultancy, FOR FREE! ;)
 
Surely good idea because no news real on FA/XX or F/X just specualations two different thread will be better ;)
 
dark sidius said:
Surely good idea because no news real on FA/XX or F/X just specualations two different thread will be better ;)
Click to expand...

Well at this point in its development the 'news' is also 'speculation'.

Personally I don't see how two 500 comment threads improve on a single 1000 comment thread. You'd still be searching the same volume of information to what has been already said or speculated on.
 
Yes the reality in fact there is no real news about the F/X just drawing board pictures and a start of answers for the engine with the follow on of Advent program and nothing else in my opinion. Just old Boeing and Lockheed poster child for now.
 
Northrop in front line for the futur 6th gen fighter battle :http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/01/21/northrop-6th-gen-fighter/22089857/
 
It would seem that, based on the article at the link that dark sidius provided, the company is leveraging work previously done on it's STAV concept from the second half of the 2000s.

index.php


index.php

(h/t flateric)


From the Defense News article:
Vice indicated that Northrop is looking at a supersonic, tailless airplane design as a potential solution, something he noted no one has ever done before.

"You don't see any supersonic airplanes today without tails," Vice said. "Why? It's really hard. But if you think about new ways to do advanced computing, very high speed processing, new materials – that's why the research we do is so important, so we can build what could likely be the next-generation fighter in 20 years. It's going to require that kind of technology, because to build that airplane is going to be really, really hard."

He also hinted that making a system optionally manned would be relatively easy for the company.
Click to expand...
 
AEDC WT model confirmed to be LM design, just in case.
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.popsci.com/darpa-wants-drones-hunt-packs

Like the "6th generation" attack aircraft artwork though don't know how realistic it is :eek:

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/DOD-USRM-2013.pdf
Click to expand...

Since the artwork originally came from DARPA, the design could be borrowed from another, F/A-XX related, DARPA study. Then again it could just be a placeholder.


EDIT: But it does remind me of something... :-\
 

Attachments

  • code-con.jpg
    code-con.jpg
    42.6 KB · Views: 360
LowObservable said:
Apparently NGC doesn't like its chances in LRS-B.
Click to expand...

Surprised to hear that, I had them as favourites with their B-2 experience.
 
Can Northrop Grumman carry the work by themselves even if they win? In the event that they win (if they do) I expect them to reach out to Boeing (most likely). A cap on cost, even a soft one is still going to put considerable risk on the ultimate winner and it would be beneficial for them to have another partner to spread it out.
 
LowObservable said:
Apparently NGC doesn't like its chances in LRS-B.
Click to expand...

Talk about stale "news." We've been discussing that in the NGB thread since I broached it back in October.
 
Lots of time before they have to decide. I am fairly certain the media would pick up some vibe before the buffer period between down select and announcement expires. If NG was looking bad in October then it is likely that Boeing/Lockheed had a much superior plan which isn't all that great for competition. I guess we could be making too much of "rumors" and what analysts speculate (or speculated) but we'll find out in a few months.

Northrop Focused on Future Production


http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/01/24/northrop-focused-on-future-requirements/22218809/
 
Unless we hear something concrete (which we haven't) I'd think it's still Northrop Grumman's to lose. LM has both the F-22 and F-35 to keep them busy.
 
sferrin said:
Unless we hear something concrete (which we haven't) I'd think it's still Northrop Grumman's to lose. LM has both the F-22 and F-35 to keep them busy.
Click to expand...

I am pretty positive that Northrop Grumman would look to tie up with Either Boeing or Lockheed in case they win. Even on the Next gen fighter, there are likely to be tie-ups once the true cost of development emerges which would happen closer to the time when the USAF or the USN firms up its requirements. In any case its quite unlikely that either of the three can do all the work in house so these partnerships are only logical.
 
NG announcing not one but two 6th Gen fighter design teams a week before 4th quarter earnings are disclosed could be construed
as trying to soften the blow.
 
marauder2048 said:
NG announcing not one but two 6th Gen fighter design teams a week before 4th quarter earnings are disclosed could be construed
as trying to soften the blow.
Click to expand...

Can't imagine giving LM both fighters and the bomber.
 
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
NG announcing not one but two 6th Gen fighter design teams a week before 4th quarter earnings are disclosed could be construed
as trying to soften the blow.
Click to expand...

Can't imagine giving LM both fighters and the bomber.
Click to expand...

Boeing is the Prime contractor for the Boeing/Lockheed team. If Northrop was selected as the winner, there was nothing contractually stopping them for spreading the work with LMA, a company that they have enjoyed a good working relationship through the F-35 program. Similarly, a win for the Boeing/LMA team could be construed as an effort to give some advanced development work to Boeing that lost out on the JSF program.
 
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
NG announcing not one but two 6th Gen fighter design teams a week before 4th quarter earnings are disclosed could be construed
as trying to soften the blow.
Click to expand...

Can't imagine giving LM both fighters and the bomber.
Click to expand...

Was it my imagination or did Lockheed nearly walk away with both ATF and ATB a generation ago?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom