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

[SpudmanWP]

No love for ADVENT? :'(

Yes I do, which is why I said use the F135.

That way if & when they make a production ADVENT engine, the F-35 won't be left behind

 

[NeilChapman]

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.

While this forum perhaps doesn't have access to the latest intel, there seems to be participants that have knowledgeable, considered opinions. Mine excluded. They are historically, geo-politically and technically minded and have a few gray hairs and receding hairlines among them. It would be very interesting to see what ideas this group of folks would come up with for many projects.

On the flip side. DoD seems to be learning from past contract mistakes. You have to build something within the guidelines of contract law using a bureaucracy - which, by design, is inefficient and prone working toward the lowest common denominator. It's brutal.

 

[marauder2048]

But I really don't see the need for more AAMs beyond the 8 carried internally by the -22.

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.

I think the real wrinkle in the magazine depth discussion is if you elect to incorporate a High Energy Pulsed System (HEPS) like a 150 kW laser. Doing so means you have to design the aircraft around that weapon.

Ex: An ESAV-style, supersonic cruising, HEPS discharging LO design probably exceeds the power generation and thermal management capacity of JP-8; some of the AFRL proposals carry a cryogenic fuel (LNG)
to power and cool the HEPS, PAO loop and the JP-8 which as you can imagine comes with its own volume and weight (and logistical) implications.

I suspect the Navy needs more of a high altitude, long endurance, mostly subsonic deep magazined (high HEPS discharge frequency) two-man fighter that can be deployed in echelon to attrit the ASCM stream raids and their launch platforms
along with doing terminal work against ASBMs.

 

[sferrin]

But I really don't see the need for more AAMs beyond the 8 carried internally by the -22.

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.

I think the real wrinkle in the magazine depth discussion is if you elect to incorporate a High Energy Pulsed System (HEPS) like a 150 kW laser. Doing so means you have to design the aircraft around that weapon.

Ex: An ESAV-style, supersonic cruising, HEPS discharging LO design probably exceeds the power generation and thermal management capacity of JP-8; some of the AFRL proposals carry a cryogenic fuel (LNG)
to power and cool the HEPS, PAO loop and the JP-8 which as you can imagine comes with its own volume and weight (and logistical) implications.

I suspect the Navy needs more of a high altitude, long endurance, mostly subsonic deep magazined (high HEPS discharge frequency) two-man fighter that can be deployed in echelon to attrit the ASCM stream raids and their launch platforms
along with doing terminal work against ASBMs.

I think the USAF is going to go for supercruise for reaction time. Think stealth F-108, with better internal weapons carriage and maybe Mach 2 supercruise with Mach 2.5 excursions. And 75,000 feet altitude.

 

[Rhinocrates]

So far we've seen individual company concepts, whereas the USAF/Navy have yet to issue any parameters. I'd assume that as with the LRS-B, the actual NGAD may be system-based rather than one platform. This is already implied by linking the F-22 with an "arsenal plane."

 

[sferrin]

So far we've seen individual company concepts, whereas the USAF/Navy have yet to issue any parameters. I'd assume that as with the LRS-B, the actual NGAD may be system-based rather than one platform. This is already implied by linking the F-22 with an "arsenal plane."

LRS-B is most definitely it's own aircraft. That's the one NG is going to build. (Of course it can talk to other aircraft but that doesn't preclude it doing it's own targeting when need be.) Same with the F-X.

 

[marauder2048]

I think the USAF is going to go for supercruise for reaction time. Think stealth F-108, with better internal weapons carriage and maybe Mach 2 supercruise with Mach 2.5 excursions. And 75,000 feet altitude.

Yep. Which in turn means that your thermal management system becomes a first order design constraint and dictates a lot of what follows.

* Could you really do 75,000 feet without resurrecting pressure suits? The studies have had more modest cruise altitude of 60,000 ft.

 

[DrRansom]

But I really don't see the need for more AAMs beyond the 8 carried internally by the -22.

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.

I think the real wrinkle in the magazine depth discussion is if you elect to incorporate a High Energy Pulsed System (HEPS) like a 150 kW laser. Doing so means you have to design the aircraft around that weapon.

Ex: An ESAV-style, supersonic cruising, HEPS discharging LO design probably exceeds the power generation and thermal management capacity of JP-8; some of the AFRL proposals carry a cryogenic fuel (LNG)
to power and cool the HEPS, PAO loop and the JP-8 which as you can imagine comes with its own volume and weight (and logistical) implications.

I suspect the Navy needs more of a high altitude, long endurance, mostly subsonic deep magazined (high HEPS discharge frequency) two-man fighter that can be deployed in echelon to attrit the ASCM stream raids and their launch platforms
along with doing terminal work against ASBMs.

I think the USAF is going to go for supercruise for reaction time. Think stealth F-108, with better internal weapons carriage and maybe Mach 2 supercruise with Mach 2.5 excursions. And 75,000 feet altitude.

I stealth F-108 would be baller.

From an overall perspective, the design of 4th and 5th gen fighters are dominated by the need to have high maneuverability. Once you start added DEW to fighters, that maneuverability becomes less important. I can see how fighter design would either end up purely subsonic or supersonic cruising. With the LRS-B providing subsonic flight, along with future UCAV's, the remaining gap is supersonic for fast response.

For the Navy, I suspect a F/A-XX would trade cruise speed and some range in return for higher bomb payload. I don't think that it will be purely subsonic, the fighter will still have to serve as a fleet air defense interceptor. If anything is going to be subsonic, it will be a DEW UCAV providing forward missile defense.

 

[sferrin]

I think the USAF is going to go for supercruise for reaction time. Think stealth F-108, with better internal weapons carriage and maybe Mach 2 supercruise with Mach 2.5 excursions. And 75,000 feet altitude.

Yep. Which in turn means that your thermal management system becomes a first order design constraint and dictates a lot of what follows.

* Could you really do 75,000 feet without resurrecting pressure suits? The studies have had more modest cruise altitude of 60,000 ft.

60,000 still requires a pressure suit IRRC. (Thought anything over 50k did.)

 

[Steve Pace]

I can't see a fighter pilot wearing a pressure suit - too restrictive for quick reaction times. -SP

 

[sferrin]

I can't see a fighter pilot wearing a pressure suit - too restrictive for quick reaction times. -SP

Nobody is going to be dog-fighting at 75,000 feet. Think of it as something that can sit up high, play quarterback, can react and reposition quickly, over a large area. An aircraft worthy of the name "Valkyrie".

 

[DrRansom]

I can't see a fighter pilot wearing a pressure suit - too restrictive for quick reaction times. -SP

Nobody is going to be dog-fighting at 75,000 feet. Think of it as something that can sit up high, play quarterback, can react and reposition quickly, over a large area. An aircraft worthy of the name "Valkyrie".

Something I wonder if USAF will look at making it a two person plane. If the F-X will have a role in managing UAVs, then having two people would make management task much easier.

Marauder - thermal becomes a problem above Match 2, but I don't think it is dominant yet at those speeds.

 

[TomS]

Something I wonder if USAF will look at making it a two person plane. If the F-X will have a role in managing UAVs, then having two people would make management task much easier.

Alternatively, adding some autonomy to the "mother" might be useful -- let the plane fly itself for routine stuff while the pilot manages the UCAVs, then let the pilot take over for demanding phases of the aircraft's own flight. Basically an enhanced autopilot, not full-fledged combat autonomy.

 

[sferrin]

Something I wonder if USAF will look at making it a two person plane. If the F-X will have a role in managing UAVs, then having two people would make management task much easier.

Alternatively, adding some autonomy to the "mother" might be useful -- let the plane fly itself for routine stuff while the pilot manages the UCAVs, then let the pilot take over for demanding phases of the aircraft's own flight. Basically an enhanced autopilot, not full-fledged combat autonomy.

Has it ever been said that the F-X is suppose to be a "mother ship"? ??? (Don't think I've ever seen that.)

 

[Rhinocrates]

AFAIK, no formal requirements have been issued. We are seeing internal company proposals, not what the Pentagon considers to be the threat and what they require to meet it. How someone goes about meeting that threat comes afterwards, so once formal requirements are issued, the concepts will change radically.

Consider likely theatre of operations - many are assuming confronting China in the Pacific, requiring long range and the assumption numerical superiority on the opposing side. The air dominance fighter plus arsenal plane makes sense there.

How about tensions in the Arctic over resources and borders?

One of the reasons for the cancellation of the NGB and succession of the LRSB is that it was rapidly turning into a Battlestar Galactica, expected to do everything and thus pricing it out of existence.

While it will be its own platform and high altitude, long range and speed will be favoured over dogfighting ability, (hat tip sferrin), might the expectation that it work in synergy with other aircraft types be essential to the requirements? Therefore it might not have every 'nice to have' quality to keep costs down.

 

[sferrin]

AFAIK, no formal requirements have been issued. We are seeing internal company proposals, not what the Pentagon considers to be the threat and what they require to meet it. How someone goes about meeting that threat comes afterwards, so once formal requirements are issued, the concepts will change radically.

Consider likely theatre of operations - many are assuming confronting China in the Pacific, requiring long range and the assumption numerical superiority on the opposing side. The air dominance fighter plus arsenal plane makes sense there.

How about tensions in the Arctic over resources and borders?

One of the reasons for the cancellation of the NGB and succession of the LRSB is that it was rapidly turning into a Battlestar Galactica, expected to do everything and thus pricing it out of existence.

While it will be its own platform and high altitude, long range and speed will be favoured over dogfighting ability, (hat tip sferrin), might the expectation that it work in synergy with other aircraft types be essential to the requirements? Therefore it might not have every 'nice to have' quality to keep costs down.

The Arctic would also require operating over larger area, so something that works for the Pacific would likely would for there. As for intentionally making an aircraft DEPENDENT on other aircraft in order to fill it's mission I am skeptical. I don't see LRS-B in that category either. I think it'll have at LEAST as much integral targeting capability as the B-1B or B-2. I also think F-X won't be parked on the runways, uselessly, if an AWACS or Aegis cruiser isn't available.

 

[Rhinocrates]

I'm trying to think like a congressman who wants a cheap plane. Admittedly this involves depriving my brain of oxygen.

 

[sferrin]

I'm trying to think like a congressman who wants a cheap plane. Admittedly this involves depriving my brain of oxygen.

DAMMIT MAN BE CAREFUL! That could cause permanent brain damage.

 

[quellish]

I can't see a fighter pilot wearing a pressure suit - too restrictive for quick reaction times. -SP

Northrop could.

 

[DrRansom]

Northrop could.

What program is that from? I tried to read the patch, but the glare covered it. It was a Northrop / McDonnell Douglas AT??3.

 

[Steve Pace]

Northrop could.

What program is that from? I tried to read the patch, but the glare covered it. It was a Northrop / McDonnell Douglas AT??3.

ATF-23. The YF-23. -SP

 

[NeilChapman]

Northrop could.

What program is that from? I tried to read the patch, but the glare covered it. It was a Northrop / McDonnell Douglas AT??3.

ATF-23. The YF-23. -SP

On a Nautica hanger. How cool is that ;-)

 

[marauder2048]

I think the USAF is going to go for supercruise for reaction time. Think stealth F-108, with better internal weapons carriage and maybe Mach 2 supercruise with Mach 2.5 excursions. And 75,000 feet altitude.

Yep. Which in turn means that your thermal management system becomes a first order design constraint and dictates a lot of what follows.

* Could you really do 75,000 feet without resurrecting pressure suits? The studies have had more modest cruise altitude of 60,000 ft.

60,000 still requires a pressure suit IRRC. (Thought anything over 50k did.)

The partial pressure suit worn by the F-22 pilots is fine for 60,000 ft. I tend to think you'll need reasonably good supersonic turning performance since at Mach 2 you'll be bumping into pop-up threats with less warning time.

 

[bobbymike]

Air Dominance 2030, or Sooner?


—John A. Tirpak 2/19/2016

​March will also see some public discussion of the results of the Air Force and Pentagon’s Air Dominance 2030 study, USAF plans and requirements chief Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes said Thursday. “We’ll do some public release after it’s briefed out to senior leaders … sometime in March,” Holmes told reporters after an AFA Mitchell Institute event in Arlington, Va. The disclosure will focus more on the process of thinking about the next steps in air dominance—a successor to the F-22 and F/A-18—and probably less on what recommendations were made, Holmes said, but he reiterated that, “It won’t just be one airframe, but a family of systems that help us make sure we can guarantee the air superiority that the joint force depends on.” Though the study postulated something in the 2030 timeframe, in keeping with USAF’s push to speed up the introduction of new technology and keep ahead of adversaries, “I’d like to get there sooner,” Holmes said. The next step in the process will be an analysis of alternatives, he added.

 

[kagemusha]

—a successor to the F-22 and F/A-18—

And to the F-15C/D/E ?

 

[sferrin]

—a successor to the F-22 and F/A-18—

And to the F-15C/D/E ?

And F/A-18? I thought that was the USN F/A-XX. ???

 

[TomS]

Just because it says "a replacement" don't think that means a single aircraft, it's a reference to the overall "family of systems" approach. I think this follows logically from Holmes' comments last week about the USN and USAF not using the same aircraft.

 

[sferrin]

Just because it says "a replacement" don't think that means a single aircraft, it's a reference to the overall "family of systems" approach. I think this follows logically from Holmes' comments last week about the USN and USAF not using the same aircraft.

Still, the F-X and F/A-XX are separate programs with the latter being the Super Hornet replacement. Saying the F-X (the USAF program) would replace any Hornet variant makes no sense. Also re. the "family of systems" simply means it won't JUST be a new fighter they're looking at. I guarantee you, they aren't pouring all that money into ADVENT (and others) just so it can sit on a shelf and collect dust somewhere, while they replace the F-22 with blimps and SAMs. The F-X program will have an F-22 replacement aircraft in addition to other things. Perhaps the "family" includes a long range interceptor AND a fighter, with them having common everything except the airframe (which largely determines aerodynamic characteristics).

 

[TomS]

Saying the F-X (the USAF program) would replace any Hornet variant makes no sense.

I'll bet money Holmes never said F-X would replace the F/A-18.

 

[bobbymike]

Just because it says "a replacement" don't think that means a single aircraft, it's a reference to the overall "family of systems" approach. I think this follows logically from Holmes' comments last week about the USN and USAF not using the same aircraft.

Still, the F-X and F/A-XX are separate programs with the latter being the Super Hornet replacement. Saying the F-X (the USAF program) would replace any Hornet variant makes no sense. Also re. the "family of systems" simply means it won't JUST be a new fighter they're looking at. I guarantee you, they aren't pouring all that money into ADVENT (and others) just so it can sit on a shelf and collect dust somewhere, while they replace the F-22 with blimps and SAMs. The F-X program will have an F-22 replacement aircraft in addition to other things. Perhaps the "family" includes a long range interceptor AND a fighter, with them having common everything except the airframe (which largely determines aerodynamic characteristics).

Seems like he was just talking 'Air Dominance' in general? Wasn't there a joint office set up between USAF and USN to discuss common technologies?

 

[bobbymike]

USAF wants $73M for air dominance studies, experiments across FYDP

As the Air Force eyes an analysis of alternatives next year for a future air dominance family of systems, the service's fiscal year 2017 budget submission calls for $73 million to support continued experimentation and planning for the effort over the next five years

 

[bobbymike]

From Inside the Air Force: The interwebz provides

Air Force, Navy next-gen fighter plans moving at different paces

February 17, 2016

Two parallel Pentagon programs -- one Air Force, one Navy -- exploring future air dominance needs that top Defense Department brass want in sync appear to be moving at different paces, according to the fiscal year 2017 budget request. The Air Force has scrapped notional plans to launch a sixth-generation fighter in fiscal year 2018 and instead adopted a plan to annually update policymakers with "strategic planning options," a move accompanied by a funding increase in fiscal year 2017. That stands in sharp relief with Navy plans for a corresponding capability -- which it slashed by 76 percent compared to last year.

The Air Force's FY-17 budget seeks $20 million in advanced component development and prototype funding for its Next Generation Air Dominance project, a 140 percent jump compared to its FY-16 budget, which did not forecast future funding needs. The Navy, by comparison, is seeking $1.2 million for its Next-Generation Fighter research and development budget line to finance continued study and analysis of its requirement to replace the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G in the 2030s, a 76 percent reduction compared to the $5 million appropriated in FY-16. The Navy's FY-17 budget request does not forecast further spending needs. In February 2013, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council approved the Air Force's new fighter requirement and directed the service to conduct a joint analysis of alternatives (AOA) with the Navy once the council approved the Navy's Next-Generation Air Dominance Family of Systems initial capabilities document.

The Navy was expected to complete its requirements documents in early 2014; however, the FY-17 budget request indicates the requirement for a follow-on capability to the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G is not complete. The service's FY-17 budget request would "continue an AOA to establish cost and capability trade spaces described by the capability requirements . . . in the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Initial Capabilities Document and the signed NGAD Study Plan." Meantime, the Air Force FY-17 budget request revamps the research effort designed to shape a potential sixth-generation fighter aircraft program, punting on a plan to seek a material development decision in fiscal year 2016 while also increasing the planned funding stream and adopting a strategy to annually update senior policymakers on technology advances. The Air Force's budget request funds three efforts: $6.5 million for concept development, $3.1 million for air dominance studies, and $10.8 million for technical risk reduction.

Last year, the Air Force set a material development decision for the end of FY-16, which would formally transition the effort from requirements definition to early acquisition by beginning the joint AOA. While a material development decision is no longer on the Air Force schedule, the service still plans to launch an analysis of alternatives during the second quarter of FY-17, an effort slated to conclude during the fourth quarter of FY-18, according to the new budget request. The FY-17 budget jettisons that plan and replaces it with an annual presentation of "strategic planning choices."

 

[marauder2048]

USAF wants $73M for air dominance studies, experiments across FYDP
As the Air Force eyes an analysis of alternatives next year for a future air dominance family of systems, the service's fiscal year 2017 budget submission calls for $73 million to support continued experimentation and planning for the effort over the next five years

To put these amounts in perspective, the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (now Advanced Engine Development) won't award until October but they plan to spend $2.4 billion on it over the next five years.

 

[bobbymike]

USAF wants $73M for air dominance studies, experiments across FYDP
As the Air Force eyes an analysis of alternatives next year for a future air dominance family of systems, the service's fiscal year 2017 budget submission calls for $73 million to support continued experimentation and planning for the effort over the next five years

To put these amounts in perspective, the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (now Advanced Engine Development) won't award until October but they plan to spend $2.4 billion on it over the next five years.

Plus my guess is that the Black World is full of avionics, radar, stealth coatings/materials, weapons etc. in the billions as well.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/02/20/air-force-future-lasers-fighter-jets-planes-think/80515698/

 

[Rhinocrates]

Opinion piece in AW about Next Gen fighter - oops, apparently I shouldn't say that. It's paywalled, so I can't get more than the first paragraph.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-defining-next-fighter

"The first thing to do about the sixth-generation fighter is to stop calling it a sixth-generation fighter. Ever since Lockheed Martin borrowed the “fifth-generation” brand from the Russians a decade ago, it has muddied the debate. It is at best an example of begging the question—that is, assuming as fact (“high-band stealth is worth the money and everything else is obsolete”) what needs to be demonstrated. Labels aside, it is becoming popular to talk about what ..."

I'll be interested to see what follows, and hang around my local library more.

 

[sferrin]

Opinion piece in AW about Next Gen fighter - oops, apparently I shouldn't say that. It's paywalled, so I can't get more than the first paragraph.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-defining-next-fighter

"The first thing to do about the sixth-generation fighter is to stop calling it a sixth-generation fighter. Ever since Lockheed Martin borrowed the “fifth-generation” brand from the Russians a decade ago, it has muddied the debate. It is at best an example of begging the question—that is, assuming as fact (“high-band stealth is worth the money and everything else is obsolete”) what needs to be demonstrated. Labels aside, it is becoming popular to talk about what ..."

I'll be interested to see what follows, and hang around my local library more.

The claim that some marketers copied the concept of "generations" from the Russians is incorrect. It's been around for decades. Here's one from 1990 (just a tad further back than "a decade ago"):

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/win90/1win90.htm


And I'm certain that's not the first time it was ever mentioned. I'd swear, as far back as the 80s I'd seen the Tomcat referred to as "the first of the 4th generation aircraft". There are several sources online that claim the Russians first coined the "generations" concept in the mid 90s but by then it was already old. Some break the "generations" down a bit different. The link I posted above splits them a bit different, but they're generally comperable. And LM isn't the only entity referring to the generation after the F-22 as the "6th Generation".

 

[marauder2048]

Just by reading that first paragraph I knew who'd written the article. He claims some marketers copied the concept of "generations" from the Russians but that is incorrect. It's been around for decades. Here's one from 1990 (just a tad further back than "a decade ago"):

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/win90/1win90.htm


And I'm certain that's not the first time it was ever mentioned. I'd swear, as far back as the 80s I'd seen the Tomcat referred to as "the first of the 4th generation aircraft". There are several sources online that claim the Russians first coined the "generations" concept in the mid 90s but by then it was already old.

And FFS, the RAND/USAF "Next-Generation" fighter studies of the mid-90's that helped inform JAST/JSF use "fourth-generation" and "fifth-generation."

 

[bobbymike]

Just by reading that first paragraph I knew who'd written the article. He claims some marketers copied the concept of "generations" from the Russians but that is incorrect. It's been around for decades. Here's one from 1990 (just a tad further back than "a decade ago"):

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/win90/1win90.htm


And I'm certain that's not the first time it was ever mentioned. I'd swear, as far back as the 80s I'd seen the Tomcat referred to as "the first of the 4th generation aircraft". There are several sources online that claim the Russians first coined the "generations" concept in the mid 90s but by then it was already old.

And FFS, the RAND/USAF "Next-Generation" fighter studies of the mid-90's that helped inform JAST/JSF use "fourth-generation" and "fifth-generation."

I first came across the use of generations, IIRK, in Soviet Military Power, the Pentagon's annual review of USSR's military advancements. I seem to recall 'generations' being also used for SSNs, SSBNs, SLBMs and ICBMs.

 

[sferrin]

Just by reading that first paragraph I knew who'd written the article. He claims some marketers copied the concept of "generations" from the Russians but that is incorrect. It's been around for decades. Here's one from 1990 (just a tad further back than "a decade ago"):

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/win90/1win90.htm


And I'm certain that's not the first time it was ever mentioned. I'd swear, as far back as the 80s I'd seen the Tomcat referred to as "the first of the 4th generation aircraft". There are several sources online that claim the Russians first coined the "generations" concept in the mid 90s but by then it was already old.

And FFS, the RAND/USAF "Next-Generation" fighter studies of the mid-90's that helped inform JAST/JSF use "fourth-generation" and "fifth-generation."

I first came across the use of generations, IIRK, in Soviet Military Power, the Pentagon's annual review of USSR's military advancements. I seem to recall 'generations' being also used for SSNs, SSBNs, SLBMs and ICBMs.

I remember it with ICBMs. The classic Soviet Military Power model: