Register here

Author Topic: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA  (Read 785365 times)

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Quote
Boeing is touting an even newer version of its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that, paired with an advanced sixth-generation fighter in the works at the company, would give customers what Boeing deems a better package of capabilities than Lockheed Martin's combination of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The idea is that customers could buy 4.5 generation Super Hornets (perhaps 4.75 generation with the planned extra forward stealth and extra range of Block 3 aircraft) and then switch to a new, sixth generation faster than if they bought the fifth generation Joint Strike Fighter. To be available circa 2024, the sixth generation aircraft would feature a combat radius of more than 1,000 miles and stealth against a much wider spectrum of radars.

"The [Navy] C-version of the F-35 doesn't buy you a lot that the Super Hornet doesn't provide," says Bob Gower, Boeing's vice president for F/A-18 and EA-18G programs. "Our strategy is to create a compelling reason for the services to go to the next [sixth] generation platform. How do you bridge F/A-18E/F to get us there? We want to convince customers to stay with [Super Hornet] a few years longer -- by adding advanced capabilities and lowering price -- so that they can get to the sixth generation faster. If you go to JSF first, it's going to be a long time."

Another part of Boeing's argument is that the "Navy is comfortable with the Super Hornet against the highest [enemy] threat through 2024, with the [improved] capabilities we have in the flight plan," Gower says. "The ability to counter the threat gets you to about the point that [Boeing's] sixth generation is available."

It's part of Boeing's counterattack on Lockheed Martin's claim that the decreasing price of the F-22, which is now at $140 million each, will make it so attractive that Australia may reconsider its buy -- already being paid for -- of 24 two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets. Until Australia's recent change in government, a number of U.S. officials said the government was considering a second lot of 24 Super Hornets and a six-plane squadron of EA-18G Growlers.

Boeing makes the argument that a sliding in-service date for the JSF is worrying both the Australians and the U.S. military.

"The U.S. Air Force and Navy are now talking a lot more about where they need to go with sixth generation to get beyond JSF," Gower says. "It could be unmanned, but I think you will see a combination of missions -- some manned, some unmanned."

For Boeing, the real discriminators are going to be extended range (1,000-1,500 miles), a small radar signature against low-frequency radars, expanded awareness through connections with the network, and the ability to carry a number of bombs internally.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/6THG013008.xml&headline=Boeing%20Plans%20Sixth%20Generation%20Fighter%20With%20Block%203%20Super%20Hornet&channel=defense

Seems that probably we will see very interesting competitors fight.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2008, 04:03:35 pm »
Well, seams like a good time to bring in an old link again:
Its regarding an advanced fighter research done by Boeing. Clearly the homework was done before building X-36

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960000737_1996900737.pdf

I doubt they will go for a completely new and never considered design if its going to be a self financed program.
It's also interesting how are they planing to protect their sales.

The new design will definitely have to be carrier capable.


We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

avatar

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2008, 10:05:29 pm »
and probably able to take off from from a STOBAR carrier 
« Last Edit: February 05, 2008, 02:27:53 am by avatar »

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 288
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/
On the Flight Global website. Spotted at last week's AUVSI North America show in San Diego.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/06/navy-unveils-first-official-gl.html

Anyone reckon this is real program or just a space filler?

Cheers, Woody

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1590
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Finally and hopefully a capable replacement for the Grumman A-6 Intruder?
The US Navy’s obsession with the F/A-18 Hornet family has put all its eggs in the one basket, while still lacking range and payload capability of a design (the A-6 Intruder) that was supposed to be obsolete! ???
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2584
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
I believe you will find that it isn't a real proposal but rather simply a representative concept to match against the UCAS-D which is the unmanned platform.  In other words, they use the conceptual F/A-XX manned one to show how much better the unmanned one will be - happens quite a bit, e.g. Boeing did it with their Sonic Cruiser a few years back (i.e. they had a conceptual conventional aircraft design of the same generation to compare against).

Regards,

Greg
« Last Edit: June 18, 2008, 12:49:16 pm by GTX »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
NUCAS wing evolution is quite close to what I've heard, so new wing/body/tail configuration is can be judged as not fan-art (in a way it's not pure imagination of clerk making another presentation ppt)
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline CammNut

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 296
F/A-XX is the US Navy's notional replacement for the F/A-18 from 2025. It has publicly stated that N-UCAS will be F/A-XX, but it has to go through a formal analysis of alternatives to determine whether that will actually be what happens. Meanwhile the Navy is thinking of cancelling the X-48B UCAS-D demonstrator to save money for shipbuilding. If it succeeds, N-UCAS will never happen.

The designs shown in Flight are merely generic designs used in mission simulations to illustrate the potential benefits of a tailless N-UCAS in terms of range and persistence. They in no way represent "real" F/A-XX designs - those are still years away.

Offline CammNut

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 296
Here are the graphics from the US Navy presentation at AUVSI. Basically they show how long each of the four designs can stay on station over the target area with the carrier 500nm off shore, or 1,500nm to stay out of range of ballistic missiles (the scenario is a US favourite, war against China).

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2584
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Quote
Meanwhile the Navy is thinking of cancelling the X-48B UCAS-D demonstrator to save money for shipbuilding.

I think you might mean the X-47B rather than X-48B.  Hopefully they won't cancel the UCAS program - it has been though enough already when you go to the start with the X-45.  Plus they're so close now.

Regards,

Greg

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2008, 10:00:44 am »
New images of Boeing F/A-XX concepts from Darryl W. Davis (President, Boeing's IDS Advanced Systems) report maiden at Farnborough, 2008 in July.
X-45C and Lockheed/Boeing NGB family shapes are apparent.

One can clue that ones posted at the top of the thread are NG concepts (I bet I've seen almost same operations charts style in NG J-UCAS ppt's).
« Last Edit: November 08, 2008, 10:21:57 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline GAU-8 Avenger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2008, 11:09:15 pm »
In my opinion this design should be manned, although a seperate UCAV should still be developed.

Considering the A-12 Avenger II, I am a bit wary of the tailess design, plus the alternative would probably be better for air-to-air combat.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2008, 02:50:05 pm »
In my opinion this design should be manned, although a seperate UCAV should still be developed.

Once the US Navy have the UCAS-D in service the massive increase in sortie effectiveness thanks to endurance should make it clear to even the most blighted pro-pilot perspective that their is no future for manned combat aircraft. That is even without factoring in the huge cost savings of having no need for any peactime flying training.

Considering the A-12 Avenger II, I am a bit wary of the tailess design, plus the alternative would probably be better for air-to-air combat.

The A-12's problems had nothing to do with having a tail or not. And in contemporary and future air to air combat (including within visual range) a tail for high G, slow speed manoeuvring is pretty meaningless. FA-XX is conceived as post F-35 (ie 2030) weapon system so will bear as much resemblance to the 1970s fighters (F-15/16/18/FLANKER/FLUCRUM) as they did to the Sopwith Camel.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Just call me Ray

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 680
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2008, 10:12:15 am »
And in contemporary and future air to air combat (including within visual range) a tail for high G, slow speed manoeuvring is pretty meaningless.

I know I'm putting myself on the line here, but I think UCAVs will make air to air combat meaningless. Rather than realizing the high-G capabilities of UCAVs, future commanders and designers will instead prefer to see the cost savings of a very lightweight, very small and very cheap semi-expendable UCAV that will forgo the extra complexity of a reinforced, stressed structure and complicated programming and instead depend on stealth, careful flight planning and its own expendability to to survive or at least swarm a target. Most "air interception" will in fact take place on the ground by attacking the enemy's airfield infrastructure, and surface-to-air missiles will take care of the rest (or stealth technology will simply make air interception difficult to impossible, once again necessitating destruction on the ground).

EDIT: And just some other thoughts I've had.


I wouldn't necessarily discount manned combat aircraft as being completely dead, but I would say that their actual role in combat would be greatly transformed and that they wouldn't take part in actual direct combat. I know a lot of future manned combat aircraft designs are designed as acting as command nodes for unmanned aircraft, which makes sense. As far as I see it, it could go one of two ways - a glorified AWACS on an airliner platform, or some sort of "super-fighter" ala F-22 with impressive sensors and command relay capability with impressive combat performance, but this performance was designed with the aim of self-defense and as more of a secondary capability. Either option would probably be equally expensive or close enough to it given the complexity of the computer equipment they carry, and either way, I would be surprised if there are more than 100 "combat" pilots/manned combat aircraft in the USAF at this time, or say more than two assigned to intra-theater operations.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2008, 10:35:27 am by Just call me Ray »
It's a crappy self-made pic of a Lockheed Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR), BTW
Even Saddam realized the hazard of airplanes, and was discovered hiding in a bunker.
- Skydrol from Airliners.net

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Graham Warwick from Ares, the Defense Technology Blog at AVIATION WEEK posted this morning the lastest Boeing concept for F/A-XX (US Navy) program.
Well, it looks much more better than "UnManned Combat Air Vehicle" posted before. The intakes look more similar to them of the F-14 than F-22.  B)
2 seats and two engines, the Navy and I am proud!
But to 2025 is still a long time.   :-\
Quote
{..) It's Boeing's latest artist's conception of the U.S. Navy's proposed F/A-XX replacement for the F/A-18E/F, notionally needed on carrier decks around 2025. It's described as "6th generation", but quite what that means I'm not sure - expect that it's tailless for all-aspect broadband stealth, like that other F/A-XX candidate, Northrop Grumman's N-UCAS.
I'm also not sure whether it owes more to Boeing's Phantom Works advanced designers or the graphic artists of Hollywood, particularly those that worked on the movie Stealth. But it looks more like a 6th-gen fighter than earlier impressions from Boeing.
Meanwhile don't hold your breath. The Navy is still in the early days of evaluating its requirements for an F/A-18E/F replacement. It's planning to fly the X-47B UCAS demonstrator from a carrier around 2011, and that will do a lot to shape its thinking about whether the next naval strike aircraft should be manned or unmanned, or both.

Source: Ares - A Defense Technology Blog -      
Picture: Sneak Peek at 6th Gen? - By Graham Warwick at 5/5/2009 3:38 PM
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 10:25:32 am by fightingirish »
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
The intakes look more similar to them of the F-14 than F-22.

Actually, the intakes appear to be just like those on the Super Hornet, IMHO. An awesome looking design none the less.


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2009, 02:54:36 pm »
Article in the June 15, 2009 issue of Defense News magazine "Uncertain Skies for US Industrial Base". Paraphrased quote from a Lockheed executive - "There is a lot of design and development work going on......a lot of future programs people are looking at.....F/A-XX, a sixth generation Air Force fighter and a number of black programs that already have robust engineering work ongoing."

I have seen one picture of a tailless fighter dubbed "possible F/A-XX" but nothing on the other programs, anyone?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #17 on: June 29, 2009, 05:12:36 pm »
Article in the June 15, 2009 issue of Defense News magazine "Uncertain Skies for US Industrial Base". Paraphrased quote from a Lockheed executive - "There is a lot of design and development work going on......a lot of future programs people are looking at.....F/A-XX, a sixth generation Air Force fighter and a number of black programs that already have robust engineering work ongoing."

I have seen one picture of a tailless fighter dubbed "possible F/A-XX" but nothing on the other programs, anyone?

Take a look at Area 51 on Google Earth.  LOTS of interesting stuff going on there.  Definitely more than just the occasional one-off.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2044
  • I am not actually here.
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2009, 09:59:53 pm »
Take a look at Area 51 on Google Earth.  LOTS of interesting stuff going on there.  Definitely more than just the occasional one-off.

I think what sferrin means here is that there is a lot of activity - and new construction - at Groom Lake, in support of flight test programs. Not that you can see any specific aircraft in Google Earth images.

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 288
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/

Offline GAU-8 Avenger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2009, 08:10:42 pm »
I like it, I hope we see this thing flying someday. Yet I fear it will be killed at some point by some idiot politicians. I believe this, the F-35C, and some sort of UCAV attack aircraft along the lines of the X-47B would provide a very capable strike force in the future.

I have two comments however:
 1: The engine nozzles look a bit strange.
 2: Will the lack of rudder make it a pain in the ass to land or line up the target in a dogfight?

I don't know if Lockheed is planning anything for F/A-XX, but I would prefer to see the contract go to Boeing, seeing how Lockheed already has the F-22 and F-35.

Regarding Area 51 on Google Earth, what looks unusual there?


Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2009, 08:56:50 pm »
I have two comments however:
 1: The engine nozzles look a bit strange.
 2: Will the lack of rudder make it a pain in the ass to land or line up the target in a dogfight?

yaw control is provided by aerodynamic control surfaces on the trailing edge of the wing or more likely by thrust vectoring
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2009, 09:46:41 pm »
if you take a closer look on this pic and the one on the previous page, you notice that the exhaust nozzles are similar to the yf-23 b-2, most likely to reduce infrared signature.  One question though, is that how can you incorporate fluidic thrust vectoring with such nozzle design?

Offline elider

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2009, 07:40:41 am »
Here is a pic I scanned from AFA magazine. It was accompanied by a comment that it was part of a
study to determine how small changes in a control surface, when the surface was in the engine exhaust
stream, could have significant influence on the aircraft's movement.
This was identified in an earlier SPF post on the JSF as a Northrop model.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #24 on: July 10, 2009, 08:03:18 am »
This is McDonnell Douglas so-called 'ACWFT 1024 configuration' developed under MACAIR/AFWL "Aero Configuration/Weapons Fighter Technology" (ACWFT) program, later resurrected as Model 296-2405/2406 range under contract for LARC to determine the impact of agility-based
requirements on the design of multi-role aircraft in '92-94.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 08:09:20 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Just call me Ray

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 680
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2009, 10:30:30 am »
I like it, I hope we see this thing flying someday. Yet I fear it will be killed at some point by some idiot politicians. I believe this, the F-35C, and some sort of UCAV attack aircraft along the lines of the X-47B would provide a very capable strike force in the future.

I would maybe add a second, smaller UAV that could be launched and directed from a manned tactical aircraft.
It's a crappy self-made pic of a Lockheed Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR), BTW
Even Saddam realized the hazard of airplanes, and was discovered hiding in a bunker.
- Skydrol from Airliners.net

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 358
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2009, 01:34:17 pm »
I thought the USN didn't like tailless deltas?

Boeing had to change the design of their JSF to include a conventional tail for the CV requirement. Always thought the X-32 design would lend itself well to the unmanned variant option, perhaps built with cheaper structural materials as a benefit of lower operating hours.

The F/A-XX looks great, in my opinion this is what the JSF should have been, a high end USN and USAF strike fighter.

The USAF low end strike fighter should have been a pure CTOL design with no CV variant and as much international cooperation as wanted. While the STOVL strike fighter could have been uncompromised by any non-STOVL requirements, the USN should have used the STOVL design if it still needed a low end strike fighter.

"What if" is great isn't it  ;D     

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2009, 02:00:48 pm »
I thought the USN didn't like tailless deltas?

Boeing thinks they should like tailless delta with TV.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2009, 03:32:17 pm »
I thought the USN didn't like tailless deltas?
Technology advance! At least, that's what the contractors said.  Remember that the Navy didn't dislike delta tailless design, but that they didn't like what COMES with it.  If all the technology required matures at that time, I don't see why the Navy has a problem.  

Quote
The USAF low end strike fighter should have been a pure CTOL design with no CV variant and as much international cooperation as wanted. While the STOVL strike fighter could have been uncompromised by any non-STOVL requirements, the USN should have used the STOVL design if it still needed a low end strike fighter.

"What if" is great isn't it  ;D    
Lol, if money isn't such a decisive factor, yeah sure! ;D

Concerning the vision of 6th generation fleet, my take is that, if the navy go back to take the high-low end approach, then the high end fighter will be a single seat manned aircraft, the second seat is replaced by AI assisting the pilot.  I don't see why the future still needs a second seat.  It's a waste of space where fuel or avionics could have been.  The low end, cheaper aircraft will be unmanned.  This is what I wrote about something I read on ucar in flightglobal a while back in another thread that I think fit this nicely:

"The UCAR will take it to another level by further enhancing "reasoning skills" and "team work." The human pilot will no longer control the air vehicles, but rather participate in a cooperation with them as a team and oversee their missions from a manned helicopter.  The team of UCARs would be able to select among themselves a "leader" for the job, decide whether to avoid or engage threats to itself, or to sacrifice itself to protect the manned aircraft, or protecting friendly targets.  As the scenarios enfolding itself, they will have the ability to switch the "leader role" among themselves and replan the missions, depend on the rules of engagement.  Relay the informations it gathered back to the manned aircraft, suggest an appropriate strategy, waiting on the pilot to make the final decision.  The pilot has x amount of time to approve, or it will be automatically approved.  The pilot will talk to the unmanned vehicles, and they talk back, and go as far as to negociate with the pilot so that top priorities will precede lower ones.  Using 5 sensors, they will be able to determine concealed and disguised targets, combatants from non-combatants, etc."

The technology should be much more mature 20 years from now, since this is planned for ucar, which was supposed to be now.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 04:10:14 pm by donnage99 »

Offline elider

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #29 on: July 10, 2009, 03:46:05 pm »
 flateric: Thanks for IDing the ACWFT 1024. When I saw the Boeing F/A-XX, I immediately recalled  the pic I had scanned from AFA magazine.
I think there is a strong resemblence between the two exhaust nozzles. IIRC the AFA article also pointed out that they had realized
better-than-expected agility during the tests. Perhaps this is a manner in which the fluidic flow control can be used to gain greater
agility than with fluidic control alone. I'm probably the least qualified to make this observation, but I thought it might generate some comments.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2009, 12:30:57 am »
We have seen a lot of pics of a nominal F/A-XX from Boeing but as my last post also states the anonymous Lockheed executive also talks of the Air Force's 6G fighter. Anyone found pics or drawings of this potential program?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline GAU-8 Avenger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2009, 12:22:45 am »
Haven't heard anything from Lockheed, but in my opinion they already have too much on their plate at the moment?

Does anybody know what the requirements of a 6th generation fighter even are?


Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2009, 10:48:44 am »
There are none.  It's not a program yet.  However, there's the FATE program which studies new technologies that could be applied to the 6th generation fighter. 
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7068.0/highlight,fate.html
I personally think that it's impossible to know what shape the aircraft gonna take, because new emergent technologies whether from the enemy or from us can greatly shift the thinking behind the plane.  We once thought Lockheed ATF was a aircraft with canard delta wing.  It could have ended up so if not for the fact that stealth was the emergent technology at the time that no one really knew about accept in the black world.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #34 on: July 12, 2009, 11:16:17 am »
Does anybody know what the requirements of a 6th generation fighter even are?
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Online robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1724
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #35 on: July 12, 2009, 11:22:40 am »
Quote
Does anybody know what the requirements of a 6th generation fighter even are?


To out-perform in all aspects a 5th generation fighter, preferably at same or lower cost, I would presume....

cheers,
         Robin.
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline Just call me Ray

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 680
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2009, 02:03:23 pm »
I would imagine most experts would agree a 6th-generation fighter may incorporate unmanned technology.
It's a crappy self-made pic of a Lockheed Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR), BTW
Even Saddam realized the hazard of airplanes, and was discovered hiding in a bunker.
- Skydrol from Airliners.net

Offline GAU-8 Avenger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2009, 05:23:53 am »
I don't know about the unmanned part considering low-cost, long-loiter time, strike aircraft seems to be what most UCAVs are aiming for.

Still waiting to see a UAV with a GAU-8/A in it.

Offline Just call me Ray

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 680
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2009, 10:13:42 am »
I don't know about the unmanned part considering low-cost, long-loiter time, strike aircraft seems to be what most UCAVs are aiming for.

That's what a "6th generation fighter" might end up being. No one said it had to be an "air dominance fighter."
It's a crappy self-made pic of a Lockheed Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR), BTW
Even Saddam realized the hazard of airplanes, and was discovered hiding in a bunker.
- Skydrol from Airliners.net

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #39 on: July 13, 2009, 10:51:06 am »
Well, considering navy's vision of replacing super hornets and compliment the f-35 fleet after 2020, I think air superiority will be a requirement.     

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 358
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #40 on: July 14, 2009, 11:10:43 am »
I'd like to see the USN revisit the missiler concept instead of a manned F/A-XX.

Give it supersonic biz-jet performance, a four crew cockpit (plus a toilet  :D ), a large internal and external weapons fit (at least twice the capacity of the F-35C), a remote gun turret on the tail or belly that can later be upgraded to laser and a comprehensive sensor and communications fit capable of controlling UCAVs and all current and future weapons.

Think of it as a Super Prowler/Viking with a touch of E-2 Hawkeye  ;D

The gun turret is mainly for gunship (AC-130) type missions, it would also have a belly full of SDBs and JDAMs and rockets and missiles on the wings. The gun would come in handy for ocean patrols too, warning shots or attacking small craft.

Laser turret, hypersonic cruise missiles and long range air to air missiles could be fitted for advanced threats.

Four crew cockpit and toilet would certainly help with time over target in low intensity conflicts and could be of benefit controlling UCAVs during higher intensity conflicts.  
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 12:14:32 pm by SteveO »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2009, 10:16:51 pm »
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/October%202009/1009fighter.aspx

I know on this website and others there has been considerable discussion about ending F-22 production. The comments range from "good don't need it" to "stupidest defense decisions ever" (I fall into the later group) That said some, including myself, have said maybe just maybe there is some development program "in the black" that will lead to a 6th generations fighter.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10962
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #42 on: October 01, 2009, 11:04:19 pm »
 Yes, the whole F-22 program was an exercise in "Maskirovka" where the wily Americans spend $62 billion to fool Russia into thinking that was their next generation fighter while secretly developing their real next generation real fighter plane in Area 51, no doubt assembled by Elvis, Jimmy Hoffa and the aliens from the Roswell crash.

Seriously, I doubt there's a secret next generation fighter.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2009, 11:42:00 pm »
Wishful thinking, dear sir, wishful thinking   ;)
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

avatar

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #44 on: October 01, 2009, 11:49:13 pm »
You know something,

Prima facie what Paul is saying obviously makes sense.


But I do remember a Boeing press thingy where they offered India a "4.75" generation Supar Dupaar Hornet which *may* give India the ability to *transition* into a sixth generation fighter that Boeing will introduce in the future.

Now funny as the above sounds it probably came in response to LM's MMRCA pitch were they talked about a "flight path" from a Block 70 Falcon to the F-35 fifth generation. ;)

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10962
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #45 on: October 01, 2009, 11:54:22 pm »
Translation - *If* Boeing get some money now off you for a substandard not-actually-5th generation plane, you get a shot at their 6th generation plane. Whenever that happens. Standard "jam tomorrow" scenario.

Given the money that F-22 and F-35 have cost, isn't there a funding issue with that?
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Online Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4109
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #46 on: October 02, 2009, 01:48:00 am »
if i look on development in U.S. Military last years
i think that the 6th generation Fighter remain a "Paper plane" for the next 30 years.

why ?

the high cost on F-22 ($62 billion) and F-35 program ($40 billion)
the U.S. Military has to replace 4th generation F-15, F-16, F/A-18, AV-8, A-10, Harrier
with 5th generation F-35 (the Total cost gonna be $200 billion in 2025)
USAF needs also B-3 Bomber to replace B-1B and B-52H around 2025-2035
the U.S. NAVY need also new Aircraft "F/A-19"  http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3536.0.html
and new nuclear aircraft carriers, that all cost hundreds billions of Dollar !
also the U.S. mission in Iraq and Afghanistan need also money

the evolution between 4th and 5th generation Fighter was 24 years
F-16 R&D 10 years and 47 years in service until 2025 then replace by F-35
F-35 R&D 10 years and 50 Years in service ? makes 2062
so R&D for a 6th generation Fighter would begin not earlier then 2040
I love Strange Technology

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #47 on: October 02, 2009, 03:44:23 am »
All corect. Just an aside, but worthy of discussion. A "Maskirovka" program has actually been done (and succedeed): everything regarding hypermonouvrability in dogfight, from AFTI to X-31, inducing USSR to develop aircrafts like the Berkut.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10962
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #48 on: October 02, 2009, 03:50:20 am »
Hmm... AFTI was pretty serious, I wouldn't say it was any kind of deception.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #49 on: October 02, 2009, 04:12:12 am »
the U.S. NAVY need also new Aircraft "F/A-19"  http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3536.0.html

That's it. That is the 6th generation fighter, that Boeing is talking about all the time. They must be pretty sure, that the USAF with its F-22 and F-35 wont have any need for the new manned fighter for a loooong time, so they are focusing their work on the F/A-18E/F replacement, sometime in the 2030.

so R&D for a 6th generation Fighter would begin not earlier then 2040

I don't think so. In my opinion we will see the prototype of the 6th generation fighter in 2030. However I am not sure, what it will be. I bet my money to the unmanned solution, if the X-47B will not enter the service as the unmanned tactical bomber for some reason. If it does, then the 6th generation fighter should be optionally manned.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #50 on: October 02, 2009, 04:22:16 am »
Wishful thinking, dear sir, wishful thinking   ;)

Dude what are you thinking?  All that new construction out at Area 51 is for weather balloons.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #51 on: October 02, 2009, 05:27:46 am »
Quote
so R&D for a 6th generation Fighter would begin not earlier then 2040

If that's the case (and it could be, I honestly don't know), there is litterally going to be a generational gap of engineers with the know-how to build such a fighter. How many people who worked on JSF or F-22 are still going to be around in 30 years? How many will still remember "how it's done"?
I guess UCAVs would allow the retention of some proficiency, but that's not quite the same thing.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #52 on: October 02, 2009, 06:21:07 am »
sferrin - doesn't mean wishes don't come true!

But for the record I read, online, every month the AFA publication and they are not really one's to wildly speculate on future programs and if you remember I had a quote on another thread from a LockMart VP who talked about several programs with a couple he could not even talk about.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #53 on: October 02, 2009, 07:32:14 am »
Surely AFTI was serious, but the results and strategic direction building on its results were publicity constructed so to convince the Soviet that the way to go was hypermonouvrability in close quarters, while the ATF went in another direction entirely (supercruise, high-altitude manouvrability for vantage positioning in missile launch, lomng range detection of enemy, stealth).

Online Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4109
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #54 on: October 02, 2009, 07:35:51 am »
the U.S. NAVY need also new Aircraft "F/A-19"  http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3536.0.html

That's it. That is the 6th generation fighter, that Boeing is talking about all the time. They must be pretty sure, that the USAF with its F-22 and F-35 wont have any need for the new manned fighter for a loooong time, so they are focusing their work on the F/A-18E/F replacement, sometime in the 2030.

so R&D for a 6th generation Fighter would begin not earlier then 2040

I don't think so. In my opinion we will see the prototype of the 6th generation fighter in 2030. However I am not sure, what it will be. I bet my money to the unmanned solution, if the X-47B will not enter the service as the unmanned tactical bomber for some reason. If it does, then the 6th generation fighter should be optionally manned.

OK then year 2030
i also think is gonna be a UCAV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCAV
even with Artificial intelligence as Pilot

in worst case with budget problems
Democrats could take this solution for the F/A-19


I love Strange Technology

avatar

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #55 on: October 02, 2009, 09:16:59 am »
Quote
That's it. That is the 6th generation fighter, that Boeing is talking about all the time. They must be pretty sure, that the USAF with its F-22 and F-35 wont have any need for the new manned fighter for a loooong time, so they are focusing their work on the F/A-18E/F replacement, sometime in the 2030.

Yup. The boeing thingy did talk about "carrier capable" .

To Overscan,

The Indian Airforce had initially been very sceptical about the F-18 E/F dismissing it as a naval fighter. But then Boeing et  al started dropping hints about APG-** and things started looking better for them.

Of course nobody buys the 4.75 generation crap. this was supposed to be a SH with reduced frontal cross section and improved maneuverability through possible thrust vectoring.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #56 on: October 02, 2009, 10:29:14 am »
sferrin - doesn't mean wishes don't come true!

But for the record I read, online, every month the AFA publication and they are not really one's to wildly speculate on future programs and if you remember I had a quote on another thread from a LockMart VP who talked about several programs with a couple he could not even talk about.

I know, I was kidding.  ;)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #57 on: October 05, 2009, 03:19:55 pm »
I am just curious, how the possible production version of the X-47B will fit into the F/A-18E/F and F-35C force mix. How will be the tasks spread between them? Will the X-47B be guided by the second crew member in F/A-18, manned from the aircraft carrier or will they allow to use the mostly autonomous mode? It is critical to determine the role of the X-47B derivate when you want to predict the requirements/characteristics of the next 6th generation plane. If there is no X-47B, than it is easy - the new fighter will be the long range optionally manned F/A-18 replacement. But now there are too many variables for any accurate prediction.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #58 on: October 06, 2009, 07:43:57 pm »
anyone got a larger version of this picture in the article?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #59 on: October 06, 2009, 11:15:16 pm »
Northrop Grumman, obviously...and Air Force editor
seriously, no, haven't seen yet...wish I'd had it too
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #60 on: October 06, 2009, 11:19:58 pm »
They also have a much better picture of the boeing 6th generation fighter illustration than the one provided by Trimble that was taken by a camera off a powerpoint.  Too bad it's small also.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #61 on: October 07, 2009, 12:19:36 am »
no, not so good as these
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #62 on: October 07, 2009, 12:22:57 am »
You can always rely on the Honorable Flateric ;D Thanks a bunch, man!

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #63 on: October 07, 2009, 01:10:27 am »
no, not so good as these
In the latest magazine "Air Forces Monthly" I saw another version version of that picture "fa-xx_02.jpg"
The second F/A-XX in background seemed to be a UCAV, because it had no transparent canopy.
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #64 on: October 07, 2009, 02:13:56 am »
I am just curious, how the possible production version of the X-47B will fit into the F/A-18E/F and F-35C force mix. How will be the tasks spread between them? Will the X-47B be guided by the second crew member in F/A-18, manned from the aircraft carrier or will they allow to use the mostly autonomous mode? It is critical to determine the role of the X-47B derivate when you want to predict the requirements/characteristics of the next 6th generation plane. If there is no X-47B, than it is easy - the new fighter will be the long range optionally manned F/A-18 replacement. But now there are too many variables for any accurate prediction.

There is no answer to this question because it has yet to be determined. There are many that would argue (and have) that the X-47B can fully equip a strike fighter squadron and replace the F/A-18s alongside (or even in place of) the F-35C. However carrier air wings are run by naval aviators and NFOs who then would not have much to do (even as LSOs as the damn thing lands itself). So the counter argument is that UCAVs are inherently un-combat-worthy and each carrier should only have a few for long range ISR and IFR. If the institution triumphs in such a case it is likely that each carrier will just take onboard up to 10-12 X-47Bs (or MQ-19s as they are likely to be redesignated) in addition to the current wing. As the X-47B has a very low spotting factor and the carrier air wing is not pushing the upper limits of space on the super carriers this could be accommodated alongside the four strike fighter squadrons (F/A-18, F-35C, F/A-XX) and the EA-18Gs, E-2Ds and MH-60s.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Just call me Ray

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 680
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #65 on: October 07, 2009, 05:34:06 pm »
Well first of all I'm in no position to offer facts, just opinions on what I think things should be or what I think things are going. Take it as you will.

Overall I like the article and I think it has some pretty good ideas.

I've already stated my thoughts on future fighter development, but I'm pretty convinced that we may look at not so much a 6th generation fighter but an integrated system, the biggest component of which will be cheap, autonomous strike craft.
It's a crappy self-made pic of a Lockheed Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR), BTW
Even Saddam realized the hazard of airplanes, and was discovered hiding in a bunker.
- Skydrol from Airliners.net

Offline Spring

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #66 on: October 14, 2009, 09:28:06 am »
This whole "6th generation" is probably a marketing exercise against the incoming pakfa...

I have not seen a real definition about "6th gen", just the typical "more this, more that" a definition for "6th generation" could be, for example, unmanned vehicles.

Although i would classify generations more on their aerodynamics  and airframe, rather than on systems and such, since is technically possible to turn a F-15 unmanned, and call it next generation....as i said, there is not a real definition for the 6th generation thing.

Boeing does not have a competitive product for the projected 2015 market, lockheed got the F35, the russians will play with the Pakfa, Boeing needs a 5th generation program, and they are aiming the USN carrier fleet for this, and now that you are there, name it "6th gen" for the hype on the public...
« Last Edit: October 14, 2009, 09:47:45 am by Spring »
Hello!

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #67 on: October 14, 2009, 10:12:54 am »
I agree with Spring regarding Boeing's F/A-XX offering. I think it is still a 5th generation design even with better stealth qualities and other new features they will offer it with. I just hope to see the real deal before 2025 or whatever the Navy's date for F/A-XX to enter service is.

There is certainly no clear definition for what a 6th generation fighter includes, but there are features I think we are likely to see on such a design. Directed energy weapons, more extensive stealth qualities, sensors providing 360 degree situational awareness, greater supersonic speeds (or even hypersonic depending on propulsion developments), and possibly active camouflage.

Unmanned fighters will certainly be around but I don't know if all of these things features will be integrated into UCAVs. However I imagine a manned 6th gen fighter would have the ability to share data from the unmanned systems (video/IR feed from a UAV orbiting a battlefield for example), and may have the capability to command such UAVs if the need arises.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #68 on: October 14, 2009, 10:44:59 pm »
This whole "6th generation" is probably a marketing exercise against the incoming pakfa...
Nope, it's mostly boeing's marketing excercise against lockheed's f-35.  It's not as much for Boeing's 6th generation fighter itself, but rather to continue production of the super hornet. 

As for what the Air Force says about 6th generation fighter, they are just looking at options right now of what 6th generation mean.  If you actually read the article, they never give any indication of having a definition of 6th generation yet.  The PAK FA is intended to be 5th generation fighter, its competition is with other 5th generation fighters such as f-22 or f-35, so if there's any propaganda, it's "f-35 or f-22 are more effective than PAK-FA," and not pulling out the far fetched "6th generation" as propaganda against PAK-FA. 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #69 on: October 15, 2009, 06:53:47 am »
donnage99 - Seeing that this comes from the AFA, a big, big Air Force proponent, obviously, I think it is an "early warning" article that says, in affect, despite what is going on with the F-22 and F-35 the US better continue to explore modernization as these systems take so long to become operational.

I read the AFA website often and I get the feeling that there is a lot of fear that the Air Force will take the brunt of budget cuts and that those will come from modernization accounts.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #70 on: December 16, 2009, 09:44:32 pm »
Here's my poor try to make the pic bigger:
« Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 09:46:08 pm by donnage99 »

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #71 on: December 21, 2009, 04:21:13 pm »
Worth the time. Thanx!

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #72 on: December 21, 2009, 05:05:55 pm »
You're welcomed, Matej!

Anyone have any idea of what's goin' on at the inlet? I can't really put myself around the shape of it.

Offline Mike OTDP

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #73 on: December 28, 2009, 06:56:15 pm »
There are a couple of factors involved here.

The USAF and USN had very different approaches to TACAIR in the 1990s.  The USAF put its money on the F-22 to replace the F-15, with the "F"-35 (it really is an attack aircraft) to replace the F-16.  The Navy bought the F/A-18 E/F as a stopgap...and has never been terribly enthusiastic about F-35.  The Navy is thinking more about fielding F/A-XX in about 10-12 years.

The situation is reminiscent of the late 1950s/early 1960s.  The USAF put its money into Mach 3 hardware that never came to fruition, while the Navy took a more conservative course...and wound up with classics like the F-4 Phantom.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #74 on: February 04, 2010, 10:56:26 pm »
From Insidedefense.com (Inside the Air Force) -

AIR FORCE TO START EXPLORING F-22A REPLACEMENT AROUND MIDDLE OF DECADE
The Air Force will start looking at a replacement for its fifth-generation F-22A Raptor toward the middle of the decade with the goal of fielding a new fighter by 2025, a Pentagon report reveals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are we to believe that work will start in 2015 with "fielding" in ten years? Now this is just "crazy" talk or there is work being done today in some form. I go back to a statement by a Lockheed engineer about "several ongoing aircraft projects" with some he cannot talk about. Combine this with a FY2011 black budget of over $56 billion and......... ;)
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #75 on: April 12, 2010, 05:22:58 am »
from April Boeing Frontiers plus two more in less resolution
« Last Edit: April 12, 2010, 05:29:31 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #76 on: April 12, 2010, 09:22:47 am »
Thanks, that larger image gives some detail on the exhausts. They obviously aren't vectored in pitch, but based on their shape, I would bet the thrust is vectored in yaw, probably using fluidic controls. Now Boeing just needs to release a good underside pic of the concept and post relatively detailed drawings here, so we can analyze it.  ;D

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #77 on: April 12, 2010, 09:43:13 am »
^second for flight stability control :)
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #78 on: April 13, 2010, 06:22:51 am »
Quote
They obviously aren't vectored in pitch, but based on their shape, I would bet the thrust is vectored in yaw, probably using fluidic controls.

I see even less chance for a yaw TVC even with fluidic controls IMHO. The whole nozzle design is like a even stealthier version of the YF-23 nozzle configuration. Reminds me of the artist impressions of ATF from the early 80's.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 683
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #79 on: April 13, 2010, 12:50:05 pm »
These probably use the wing hole elevons, documented on some thing on NTRS IIRC.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot


Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7169
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Video from flightglobal.com

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/boeing-fa-xx-concept-walkaroun.html


Grrrr. Wasted opportunity!
1) It's a 1/16 scale model. Great! But no attempt seems to have been made to get the dimensions of the *model*, thus no way to use the scale of the model to determine the dimensions of the full sized vehicle.
2) The video takes a whole lot of closeups, but no decent overall views. What's the profile? What's the planform?

Bah.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
Video from flightglobal.com

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/boeing-fa-xx-concept-walkaroun.html


Grrrr. Wasted opportunity!
1) It's a 1/16 scale model. Great! But no attempt seems to have been made to get the dimensions of the *model*, thus no way to use the scale of the model to determine the dimensions of the full sized vehicle.
2) The video takes a whole lot of closeups, but no decent overall views. What's the profile? What's the planform?

Bah.

Ok , I only found the video . I'm glad if anybody can found better .

Offline BDF

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Here's a new configuration:

Clearly designed for all aspect wideband VLO. Interesting features are the intakes on the top of the vehicle, blended canopy and smooth nearly flat bottom.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/
« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 12:19:05 am by flateric »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2152
From profile, the nose really does take on a similar look to the planes from Stealth. However I do see a hint of X-36 in the planform view.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 08:02:41 am by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Steve Pace

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2269
  • Aviation History Writer
I see canards on the straight and level ac, none on the banking a/c.
When you know you're right, go ahead.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7169
    • Aerospace Projects Review
I see canards on the straight and level ac, none on the banking a/c.

No, you don't. You're seeing part of the LERX being lit by the sun/part in shadow due to the angular, pointy inlet above the wing.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 805
Is it just me or do those inlets look somewhat oversized? It's a spectacularly cool design though, I like it!

What's funny however, if you got rid of the tails and enlarged the wing that Iranian stealth model would look very similar indeed ;)

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
I also DO see a canard there... The root of the canard starts further up than the shade's outline.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
I also DO see a canard there... The root of the canard starts further up than the shade's outline.

Where?  I see a bright spot from sunlight in the side view and nothing in the top.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Here:

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
it's shadows and highlights of the inlet playing tricks imo

it apparently appears like a separate or raised canard due to the shadow of some bulges at the lower inlet lip
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
If I consider the second aircraft, and if they are both one and the same model, I must concur that you must be right. But you'll have to admit that it's pretty ambiguous. Had we seen only the top aircraft, I'm sure 99% of viewers would have gone for the canard.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
I reworked the picture using your explanation as a basis and it DOES work...

sublight

  • Guest
Wow, they haven't even built it and its so visually stealthy it plays tricks on your eyes!!!!!  ::)

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2453
Hmmm here it looks as there are canards .... ???
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Hmmm here it looks as there are canards .... ???
The newest configuration of Boeing's 'F/A-XX' has LERX and no canards!
If we look closely at pictures again, we can even read 'No Step' in the shadow.

Wow, they haven't even built it and its so visually stealthy it plays tricks on your eyes!!!!!  ::)
Good one!  :D
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 12:44:06 pm by fightingirish »
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
not really an honest lerx tbh

made a quick render on how the inlet looks like(roughly)

as you can see, it forms a triangle and when viewed at the side appears to be sort of a raised canard or something like that.
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Hmmm here it looks as there are canards .... ???

No, that's just shading on the LEX from the dorsal inlet that makes it look that way at first glance. Look at the drone version in the foreground and you can see it more clearly.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #100 on: May 07, 2010, 03:11:51 pm »
Hmmm here it looks as there are canards .... ???
Where did u get the pictures, Deino?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 288
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #102 on: May 08, 2010, 08:17:26 am »
As can be seen here in this manipulation, there is no canard (disappointed), only a lex below the intake.

Though it's always nice to see a new fast jet design get one step closer to reality I don't get the placement of said intake. Presumably the point of mounting them high is to mask them from radars below, but in this case the forward jutting inlet top would defeat this while the lex would starve it of air at high AoA.

Quote
The company understands that its potential customer wants a replacement with more engine power to supercruise, with the low observable aircraft to carry internal weapons, distributed sensors and have extreme agility.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-displays-concepts-for-fa-18ef-replacement.html

And how exactly would a rudderless delta, even with 2D thrust vectoring be extremely agile? Also despite having the deepest fuselage ever seen it has no pilot rear vision and probably a larger side area than the F-22 with it's rudders.

Guess they must know what they're doing.

Cheers, Woody
« Last Edit: May 08, 2010, 08:20:31 am by Woody »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #103 on: May 08, 2010, 10:12:42 am »
As can be seen here in this manipulation, there is no canard (disappointed), only a lex below the intake.

Though it's always nice to see a new fast jet design get one step closer to reality I don't get the placement of said intake. Presumably the point of mounting them high is to mask them from radars below, but in this case the forward jutting inlet top would defeat this while the lex would starve it of air at high AoA.

Quote
The company understands that its potential customer wants a replacement with more engine power to supercruise, with the low observable aircraft to carry internal weapons, distributed sensors and have extreme agility.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-displays-concepts-for-fa-18ef-replacement.html

And how exactly would a rudderless delta, even with 2D thrust vectoring be extremely agile? Also despite having the deepest fuselage ever seen it has no pilot rear vision and probably a larger side area than the F-22 with it's rudders.

Guess they must know what they're doing.

Cheers, Woody

I'm not sure what they're thinking if they're calling it an air superiority fighter.  No rear visability, nothing that indicates any particular agility, and the huge tadpole-shape upfront makes me wonder about the speed.  That and the two-man crew makes me think it's more geared toward the strike role.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2152
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #104 on: May 08, 2010, 10:28:27 am »
UCAV strike leader, maybe?
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #105 on: May 08, 2010, 11:38:51 am »
I can't speak for the configuration with intakes on top, but for the other one that we've seen for a while now, I think a combination of active flow control, novel control surfaces, fluidic thrust vectoring (i think the nozzle layout would still allow this.  It's not the classic TVC), would give the desired agility.  The lack of rear visibility is easy to explain - using a similiar technology (assuming with even better solution) to Northrop Grumman's Distributed Aperture System.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1866
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #106 on: May 08, 2010, 02:15:38 pm »
With improving data-links and LOAL capability, does one really need manoeurvrability for air-superiority work? With improvements in sensors and computing over the next 20 years such a requirement for turn performance may no longer be anywhere near as important as we assume it is. In comparison lower drag with a focus on low observability, higher internal volume, range and speed may be highly desirable.

Achieving good control during the inherently difficult carrier landing may be an entirely different matter though.

Is it possible to maintain control during high AOA and low speed flight with such a design? Especially in bad weather?

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 288
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #107 on: May 08, 2010, 03:02:39 pm »
Quote
But the provisionally 9g-rated airframes also reflect the air-to-air performance once provided by the Grumman F-14, which the Super Hornet finally replaced in 2006, says Dave Thieman, a programme development official in Boeing's advanced global strike systems division.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-displays-concepts-for-fa-18ef-replacement.html

Distributed apertures are a great idea. All jets should have them. Infrared cameras are only 20 bucks each at my local store. But if the rear vision isn't required, why stop there? With the emergence of directed energy weapons, it would make more sense to bury the crew at the centre of the airframe also giving them the best protection from instantaneous G-forces.

But rear vision is definitely out of fashion to look at the F-35, PAK-FA and Japanese stealth. Go figure.

Cheers, Woody

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #108 on: May 08, 2010, 05:03:09 pm »
The new designs use electronics for rear vision. It is no longer required when the sensors can see better than the human eye can. As for high AOA ability, nobody here knows what the design is capable of, but it's LEX's and planform indicate is a capable high AOA. Assuming it isn't capable of high alpha because it has dorsal inlets is like saying it can't stay in a straight line since it doesn't have vertical tails. At this point, I would say it's just driven by a higher LO requirement.

I know people like to picture all dogfights as if they were all giant WW2 or WW1 furballs, but the fact of the matter is that only 10% of all aerial kills are the result of dogfights, whereas, in 90% of them the pilot never saw it coming. As such, SA is everything and the new sensor systems give the aircrews much higher SA than a bubble canopy ever did. Not to mention, most modern aerial kills are from missiles, not guns, and with missiles getting better and better, I really think future battles will be between missiles, ECM, and High Energy Weapons. It doesn't mean there won't be dogfights, but they'll probably be in highly jammed environments and limited in nature. But it seams to me, based on what I've read of research into 6th gen systems, the U.S. military services are looking for maximum stealth and SA to make the kill. As with most aerial combat, dogfighting is the last resort.

My only question with systems like this is can they make them affordable. So far, the answer is a resounding, "No." I don't see how you then build a system more stealthy than the last one and make it more affordable. Or are they thinking they can use the extra money from not having to build vertical or horizontal tails for the extra stealth? ;)

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #109 on: May 08, 2010, 05:39:59 pm »
DARPA is trying to revolutionalize the process in which we design and build military aircraft.  If that bring any fruitation, then not only the cost, but the time to put a weapon system in the air would be a portion of what we do today.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7169
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #110 on: May 08, 2010, 05:57:41 pm »
I don't see how you then build a system more stealthy than the last one and make it more affordable.

I can. Consider:
1) The F-22A is cancelled.
2) The mold line and materials data is retained.
3) A new program for an air dominance fighter comes along.
4) Lockheed designs a new fighter using the F-22 mold lines and materials, but with simplified systems.

Since all the development work on stealth for the F-22 is already done, the F-22-Junior coudl get away with far less expense in that area.

Similarly, I'd imagine that the computers and codes needed to design a stealthy fighter are now pretty well advanced. Far easier, faster and cheaper to design the shapes needed for stealth At this point, a new fighter should be stealthy without significant development cost.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline BDF

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #111 on: May 10, 2010, 09:38:40 am »

Navy show gives sneak peek at new planes, helos

Quote
For today’s pilots and aviation sailors, the future is still pretty far away.

Conceptual drawings of futuristic unmanned fighter jets adorned glossy posters at the Sea-Air-Space Exposition sponsored by the Navy League in early May. And many Navy leaders talk about 2025 or earlier as the target year for those aircraft to join the fleet.

But the Navy is preparing to keep today’s manned aircraft on carrier decks well beyond that timeline.

Plans are underway to extend the lives of today’s F/A-18 Super Hornets by 50 percent — from 6,000 flight hours to 9,000 — said Capt. Mark Darrah, F/A-18 program manager at Naval Air Systems Command.

Considering that most Super Hornets fly about 350 hours a year under today’s high operational tempo, the 3,000-hour extension would keep the newest aircraft flying for at least another 25 years.

And if the Navy buys another batch of Super Hornets, as senior officials are suggesting, that means Boeing’s fourth-generation fighter/attack jet will be deploying on carriers until nearly 2040.

So relax, pilots. You’ve got plenty of job security for now.


More here:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/05/navy_aviation_051010w/

sublight

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #112 on: May 10, 2010, 12:36:11 pm »
That's funny, there isn't one mention of F35 in the article.... I wonder why???   B)

Offline Kryptid

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 275
    • Unbuilt Aircraft Projects on Facebook.
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #113 on: May 10, 2010, 03:08:29 pm »
I tried to develop a top view outline for the airplane using a technique similar to the one linked to in the thread about Senior Peg (as well as some eyeballing and guesswork). I'm new to this technique, so I doubt it's too accurate. The nose looks small. Comments and criticism are welcomed.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 05:59:33 pm by Kryptid »
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #114 on: May 10, 2010, 05:09:23 pm »
And how exactly would a rudderless delta, even with 2D thrust vectoring be extremely agile? Also despite having the deepest fuselage ever seen it has no pilot rear vision and probably a larger side area than the F-22 with it's rudders.

Try Boeing's NASA report "Investigation Into the Impact of Agility in Conceptual Fighter Design" and the subsequent configuration of some Model 988s. Designed in the 1990s a few of these aircraft look a bit like this new FA-XX configuration (bit of a 988-122, 988-114 mix).

Hi,

the Boeing Model-988.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960000737_1996900737.pdf
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #115 on: May 11, 2010, 12:23:47 am »
Quote
tried to develop a top view outline for the airplane using a technique similar to the one linked to in the thread about Senior Peg (as well as some eyeballing and guesswork). I'm new to this technique, so I doubt it's too accurate. The nose looks small. Comments and criticism are welcomed.

It look like you drew it correctly, then downsized its longest side but left "keep aspect ratio" option unchecked  ;)
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline Kryptid

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 275
    • Unbuilt Aircraft Projects on Facebook.
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #116 on: May 11, 2010, 12:53:04 pm »
Quote
tried to develop a top view outline for the airplane using a technique similar to the one linked to in the thread about Senior Peg (as well as some eyeballing and guesswork). I'm new to this technique, so I doubt it's too accurate. The nose looks small. Comments and criticism are welcomed.

It look like you drew it correctly, then downsized its longest side but left "keep aspect ratio" option unchecked  ;)
I didn't use the same programs as the ones suggested, unfortunately. If I knew the ratio of length-to-wingspan I could make it more accurate. Of course, I'd probably be better off leaving this to someone else! :P
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7169
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #117 on: May 11, 2010, 04:05:56 pm »
Here's my take on the latest version. I'm mostly satisfied, except something about the top view of the canopy doesn't seem right. No idea as yet regarding scale, however.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #118 on: May 12, 2010, 04:54:52 am »
Here's my take on the latest version. I'm mostly satisfied, except something about the top view of the canopy doesn't seem right. No idea as yet regarding scale, however.


Where you take the pic ?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #119 on: May 12, 2010, 05:36:59 am »
Is it too hard to understand that Scott draw it himself?
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #120 on: May 12, 2010, 09:40:39 am »
Isn't landing an aircraft without yaw control on an aircraft carrier going to be a bit problematic? I've never landed on a carrier myself, but I would imagine pilots use the rudder for all sorts of minor adjustments.

How did they get around this on the A-12?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #121 on: May 12, 2010, 10:12:00 am »
i wonder why Boeing chose to give the cockpit such a 'stepped' shape. it's not like this is a trainer and the guy in the back needs to carrier-land this thing in an emergency (plus by the time this thing gets into service, auto land/JPALS SHOULD be a reality...why would he/she need such field of view over the nose?

Regarding landing without aerodynamic yaw effectors, if anything at low speed thrust vectoring will give you better control because aero surfaces' authority decreases with decreasing 'q'. TV is proportional to thrust setting, which can be left high provided you can generate a lot of drag.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #122 on: May 12, 2010, 04:18:17 pm »
The aircraft has yaw control, it just doesn't use vertical tails to achieve it. Come on guys, think. If it didn't have yaw control, it couldn't fly.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #123 on: May 12, 2010, 05:19:48 pm »
i wonder why Boeing chose to give the cockpit such a 'stepped' shape. it's not like this is a trainer and the guy in the back needs to carrier-land this thing in an emergency (plus by the time this thing gets into service, auto land/JPALS SHOULD be a reality...why would he/she need such field of view over the nose?

It could be to place the second seat above a weapon's bay? Otherwise they would have to increase length and all that entails.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #124 on: May 12, 2010, 07:58:36 pm »
not a bad guess... although eyeballing the center of lift of that planform gives a cg that's way aft of the cockpit.
I'm assuming that cg and center of lift will be pretty close, and furthermore that the centroid of the weapons bay is at the cg.

 if it is indeed a weapons bay (and it might be), then it's a pretty long one, like maybe two AMRAAMs-long.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline pedrospe

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 261
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #125 on: May 13, 2010, 03:21:12 am »
this two planes look amazing, thanks for sharing guys.

                     regards

                        Pedro

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #126 on: May 13, 2010, 03:54:06 am »
imho, it's more suited for either strike role or possibly as unmanned control plane.

top mounted intake configuration as studied by NG back then seem to conclude that this configuration is more suited for payload and range optimization. though the plane's intake per se aren't purely top mounted but a side-top mounted configuration to give it some say... +20 degree(safe assumption) alpha tolerance though +30 would be not as good as fusalage and wing shielded intakes.

fluidic TVC is likely for yaw control since you'd expect it to land on something as difficult as a carrier.

regarding the "LEX", not really an honest LEX since it would interfere with the intake flow at >+20.
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #127 on: May 13, 2010, 12:58:19 pm »
Actually, in all the papers, at least released publicly, that I've read of dorsal inlet studies by Northrop, there really wasn't an alpha limitation for the intake when designed properly, and their main concern was vortex ingestion by the inlet during sideslip at high alpha. That was an "unknown" twenty five years ago. I doubt it is unknown today and the newer engines are somewhat more tolerant of flow distortion than the older engines were. As such, I've yet to see any evidence that the design shown wouldn't be high alpha capable. Having said that, like the F-35, I don't know that they would even need to worry about that part of the envelope, beyond what is currently employed, and that the dorsal inlet is more about LO concerns than any aerodynamic considerations. I doubt it is optimized for "strike." Any aircraft like this in the future will be truly mulitrole just as they are today since they quite literally can't afford the specialization.

Also, regarding the cockpit, the Super Hornet and Hornet both have the second seat higher than the front seat. In the SH, the back seater also has a helmet mounted cuing system and he can designate targets independently of the pilot. My guess is this aircraft would have the same capability. Also, being designed from the outset as a two seat aircraft, the second seat is just incorporated into the design better than current day designs, which are largely conversions of single seat aircraft.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 01:00:15 pm by Sundog »

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #128 on: May 13, 2010, 07:41:55 pm »
hmmm... good point there. the NG model's TM intakes were placed further at the rear where the ocluding structure will inevitably cause interference as compared to the new concepts where the inlet is placed further in front which may improve tolerance comparable to a SM inlet.
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain


Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #130 on: July 18, 2010, 12:30:56 pm »
Is the lack of vertical tail surfaces in this F/A-XX concept still considered too radical, or risky, to the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense? Will it be rejected like the McDonnell Douglas/Northrop Grumman/BAe Systems Joint Strike Fighter concept? Or has the experience with the X-36 made this approach less radical or risky?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 03:36:37 pm by Triton »

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #131 on: July 18, 2010, 08:23:06 pm »
Is the lack of vertical tail surfaces in this F/A-XX concept still considered too radical, or risky, to the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense? Will it be rejected like the McDonnell Douglas/Northrop Grumman/BAe Systems Joint Strike Fighter concept? Or has the experience with the X-36 made this approach less radical or risky?

Given the number of tailless aircraft that have flown, I would say it really isn't issue, except with regard to supersonic capability. It's doable, however, I don't know if a tailless supersonic aircraft has actually flown supersonically; i.e., in the Black World. The X-36 is a supersonic configuration, but it couldn't fly supersonically, to the best of my knowledge and was never intended to from a flight test perspective.

As for the McDD/NG/BAe JSF concept, I haven't ever read of anyone having any issue with the tails/FCS for the vehicle. It was the Lift/Lift+Cruise engine set up that did it in, based on all the information I've been able to dig up.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #132 on: July 18, 2010, 10:46:20 pm »
The notion that the tailless JSF from MD was too radical for the DoD was from a program ran by History or Discovery channel.  And we know better to get our sources elsewhere from those channels in defense related issues. 

The FATE program, for what was known, did wrap itself around a tailless concept. 

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #133 on: July 18, 2010, 10:56:17 pm »
I think ever since the ATF Dem/Val testing in 1990, the industry has proven that advanced flight configuration are no longer the biggest development chalenge. Most new flight demonstrator programs complete without even a single crash.

What Boeing needs to worry about  is the F/A-XX effort not turning in the next 20+ years next gen platform that breaks the acuasition cost records again.

The aerospace industry needs to get their act together and start tto deliver more planes without a 10 years of R&D.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1169
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #134 on: July 18, 2010, 11:55:34 pm »
I think ever since the ATF Dem/Val testing in 1990, the industry has proven that advanced flight configuration are no longer the biggest development chalenge. Most new flight demonstrator programs complete without even a single crash.

What do you mean by flight demonstrator programs?  If you're thinking of combat aircraft test fleets, Gripen, EF-2000 and F-22 all had crashes.  T-50 and F-35 haven't yet, but haven't been flying for nearly as long as the other test fleets flew for.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #135 on: July 19, 2010, 05:17:48 am »
By flight demonstrators I mean those prototype flight hardware that expand the boundaries, not regular production aircraft which fly so much that sooner or later something breaks.

Ex. ATF prototypes (yes the YF-22 crashes but far outside of its initial role), X-31, X-35, X-32, X-36, X-45, Global Hawk.
Some like the Polecat and other unmanned hardware have indeed crashed, but those are pushing the limit on self control.

Generally speaking, manned or man controlled design have been considerably safer and computer prediction of flight performance has become remarkably precise. That was my point.

Boing can design whatever it wan't now. If they can make it fly in the simulators, I bet it will fly in the real world. It was not so a generation ago.

We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline Maki

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Anytime Baby!!!
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #136 on: October 03, 2010, 02:33:32 am »
No one mentioned that the F/A-XX program is renamed NGAD (next generation air dominance), hinting that the airframe is to be more optimized for air superiority (but still multirole)

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #137 on: October 03, 2010, 02:56:18 am »
Is the lack of vertical tail surfaces in this F/A-XX concept still considered too radical, or risky, to the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense?

Boeing now have the best possible argument: We have flown the Bird of Prey. Without any tail (except the first flight) and with the simple manual (!!) control, without any computer backup.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #138 on: October 03, 2010, 12:49:56 pm »
Is the lack of vertical tail surfaces in this F/A-XX concept still considered too radical, or risky, to the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense?

Boeing now have the best possible argument: We have flown the Bird of Prey. Without any tail (except the first flight) and with the simple manual (!!) control, without any computer backup.

I don't know that that applies, since the BoP was neither fast, much less supersonic, or maneuverable. It did prove some advanced technologies, especially with regard to manufacturing. However, it didn't really demonstrate it would be suitable for a supersonic fighter configuration.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #139 on: October 03, 2010, 04:10:31 pm »
No one mentioned that the F/A-XX program is renamed NGAD (next generation air dominance), hinting that the airframe is to be more optimized for air superiority (but still multirole)
The change of name hints more toward an approach that uses a combination of different assets (not neccesary a fighter) to achieve air dominance, instead of building a next generation fighter in its purest sense. 

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #140 on: October 04, 2010, 08:01:26 am »
The change of name hints more toward an approach that uses a combination of different assets (not neccesary a fighter) to achieve air dominance, instead of building a next generation fighter in its purest sense. 

A fighter must be at the center of any air-superiority plan in my opinion, I don't know what else the Pentagon would think.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1866
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #141 on: October 04, 2010, 01:28:28 pm »
One could use large number of sensor drones vectoring long range missiles. Depending on how sensor technologies develop, small stealthy drones might be more survivable near the front - with the actual warhead carriers being long endurance platforms at stand-off ranges of a couple hundred kilometers. Response times (once missiles are lancuhed) and the slightly increased operating costs (large missiles, means larger platforms) might be the major issues.

Of course, it may be a cheaper arrangement during peacetime, where fewer long-endurance patrols could replace multiple higher speed ones). The other upshot is that, once air-superiority is achieved, the warhead carriers could be converted into theatre bombers (again co-operating with smaller, stealthier drones).

In any case, I think we can all agree that fighters are turning into sensor and missile carriers - that the high maneuverability platforms like the PAK-FA might be relevant for the next four or five decades, but that the decisive characteristic is going to be sensor capabilities and weapon systems.

Offline Maki

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Anytime Baby!!!
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #142 on: October 17, 2010, 02:00:08 am »
Regarding the NGAD, Dave Thieman of Boeing said: ''It's a F-22 on the carrier''.

Their aiming at a 9g rated, 40000lb heavy carrier capable twin-engined airframe that can supercruise. To me these specs indicate an airframe optimized for air superiority. This is not so surprising since the navy is tied to the strike optimized F-35C program, and they want to avoid overlap, or else they will have a tough time selling this new plane to congress.
The only thing I find confusing is the choice of a tailless configuration for a supercruising carrier fighter. Not very conventional for this type of plane. A less risky solution would be more preferable considering the long and difficult development processes that plague modern aircraft programs, but then again technology must move on.

Link to an article on the NGAD http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/boeing-plots-return-to-next-ge.html   
 

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 683
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #143 on: October 17, 2010, 03:14:18 am »
Where do they plan on getting the money from? How many billions will a development program cost for a small number of airframes? Everybody can throw around concepts, but I'm skeptical of this thing generating flying hardware.

Tailless could be fine. With fancy leading edge aerodynamics, thrust vectoring and fly by wire...

This plane is Boeing heritage now.  :P

Anyway, you can note how close the Boeing model is in planform to the X-45 C and Phantom Ray with a cockpit stuck out in front and high alpha inlets.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #144 on: October 18, 2010, 01:23:06 pm »
Regarding the NGAD, Dave Thieman of Boeing said: ''It's a F-22 on the carrier''.

Their aiming at a 9g rated, 40000lb heavy carrier capable twin-engined airframe that can supercruise.

Didn't they used to call that the "NATF"?

Seriously, though, in an age of vectored thrust high off-boresight missiles (including high maneuverability in the endgame) , helmet mounted sights and 360 degree targeting, with the potential of directed energy weapons coming on aboard, is going to all the trouble of designing for sustained 9g worth it?

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #145 on: October 18, 2010, 04:31:00 pm »
F-14D - Just my humble two cents but maybe in the age of (future) stealth BVR missiles are anticipated to be less effective precipitating an ole' fashion furball  :D
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline gatoraptor

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 364
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #146 on: October 18, 2010, 04:40:07 pm »
Whatever they come up with, I hope that they finally drop the "/" in the designator and either call it the "FA-XX" or simply "F-XX", which is what the present day aircraft still should be.  (I still refer to it as the "F-18" in all conversation.)  After all, we had the FB-111 and there had been plans for an FB-22, so why not "FA"?

(The "F/A" designator, aside from violating all of the rules of designators, is unnecessary; just about every fighter since WW II has had ground-attack capability, sometimes used quite often.  We never had an F/A-84, F/A-100, F/A-105 or F/A-14......)

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #147 on: October 18, 2010, 04:56:11 pm »
F-14D - Just my humble two cents but maybe in the age of (future) stealth BVR missiles are anticipated to be less effective precipitating an ole' fashion furball  :D

Although I don't think that'll happen quite so dramatically, in that case that argues even more against spending a lot on 9g capability.   A 9g turn doesn't impress a close-in missile that can make 50-60g turns.  Plus, 9g sustained degrades the capabilities of the crew.  And of course 9g doesn't do much of anything against a directed energy weapon since for all intents and purposes you're motionless. 


Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #148 on: October 18, 2010, 05:03:24 pm »
Whatever they come up with, I hope that they finally drop the "/" in the designator and either call it the "FA-XX" or simply "F-XX", which is what the present day aircraft still should be.  (I still refer to it as the "F-18" in all conversation.)  After all, we had the FB-111 and there had been plans for an FB-22, so why not "FA"?

(The "F/A" designator, aside from violating all of the rules of designators, is unnecessary; just about every fighter since WW II has had ground-attack capability, sometimes used quite often.  We never had an F/A-84, F/A-100, F/A-105 or F/A-14......)

I agree.  Remember, "F/A" was PR-speak for the original Hornet when they combined the F and A versions into one aircraft. 

Although for a while AF was trying to promote the Raptor as the "F/A-22".  Thank goodness that is over!

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #149 on: October 18, 2010, 05:29:07 pm »
We'll never get rid of F/A- prefix for one important reason. It is different to the Air Force. The Navy uses F/A- and except for one brief uncomfortable moment USAF uses F-. I’m no expert on the US Navy but I have noticed a strong desire to be different to USAF at every opportunity.

The air to air missile generation after next will be no more stealthy than the current missiles. Which is pretty stealthy – a missile has a very small frontal area anyway. But they will be fast. Hypersonics will provide a significant change to air combat by massively reducing time of flight for BVR engagements. Combined with enhanced detection range thanks to AESA will make for more effective long range engagement. That is unless you are flying in >-30 dbsm LO platforms. Otherwise you will just be PITBULL bait.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2044
  • I am not actually here.
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #150 on: October 18, 2010, 05:54:02 pm »
The air to air missile generation after next will be no more stealthy than the current missiles. Which is pretty stealthy – a missile has a very small frontal area anyway.

There is a current thrust to reduce the signatures of ordinance for external carriage. RCS is much more than frontal area, as the ADM-20 demonstrates well. Creating ordinance that can be carried externally without significantly changing the signature of the carrying platform is a significant challenge, with significant payoffs. This is why so much money has been dumped into such programs in the last 20 years.
Combat aircraft are nearing the point where the visual signature is dominant. Bird Of Prey was significant in that it demonstrated not only very, very low radar and IR signatures across a wide spectrum, but was able to greatly reduce it's visual detection range as well. This is the shape of things to come (in some areas).

Hypersonic AAMs face a number of very different challenges that are far from being overcome.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #151 on: October 18, 2010, 07:02:02 pm »
There is a current thrust to reduce the signatures of ordinance for external carriage. RCS is much more than frontal area, as the ADM-20 demonstrates well. Creating ordinance that can be carried externally without significantly changing the signature of the carrying platform is a significant challenge, with significant payoffs.

Well thats a bit of a different issue to the signature while the missile has launched, which I thought was what the original issue raiser was talking about?

Hypersonic AAMs face a number of very different challenges that are far from being overcome.

Sure but progress is being made and generation after next is the 2030+ timeframe.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Maki

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Anytime Baby!!!
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #152 on: October 19, 2010, 02:47:33 am »
Quote
Seriously, though, in an age of vectored thrust high off-boresight missiles (including high maneuverability in the endgame) , helmet mounted sights and 360 degree targeting, with the potential of directed energy weapons coming on aboard, is going to all the trouble of designing for sustained 9g worth it?

Well maybe people should take into account that non U.S. stealth fighters will be coming into production sooner or later. In my opinion their reduced RCS might seriously alter air-to-air combat. BVR may become somewhat less effective. If a more powerful aircraft radar is unable to find and track targets at various ranges, then you can't expect radar guided missiles to be any more effective at tracking a target aircraft. A more maneuverable fighter may be able to break lock of a radar guided missiles. Of course there are always IR missiles, but future IR stealth measures might dampen their effectiveness also. Effectiveness of directed energy weapons is very much effected by weather and the ability of sensors to lock on and track targets.

What I'm trying to say is, maybe it isn't so ridiculous to design the plane for such high maneuverability. It isn't the first time high maneuverability was discarded as unnecessary. Just remember the design trends during the 60's (bigger, faster, lack of guns..etc.) that led to the F4 Phantom. In Vietnam the the more nimble F8 Crusader proved more effective against the small and maneuverable Migs.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #153 on: October 19, 2010, 03:37:45 am »
Perhaps the age-old distinction between pursuit and attack was not so nonsensical after all. Some fighters are designed for speed to quickly intercept an enemy aircraft, others for maneuverability in close air-to-air combat, others to fly low, be bulky and sturdy and drop their weapons... Some demand STOL capability for aircraft carriers, others require VTOL for special ops missions...

Instead of looking for the proverbial chimera, an aircraft that could do everything and anything with one single airframe, be stealthy, highly maneuverable and very fast and be full to the brim with weapons, perhaps some day soon the top-notch decision makers in Washington will realize that using a series of separate, more specialized designs may not be so stupid.

Offline Mike OTDP

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #154 on: October 19, 2010, 07:05:22 pm »
It'll be highly maneuverable for two reasons:  Quick dogfight kills and defensive maneuvering.

The Navy prefers an angles fight to an energy fight in ACM.  It's faster and simpler.

And when people start shooting missiles at you, defensive break turns can make the difference between life and death.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #155 on: October 20, 2010, 06:58:28 pm »
I'm not saying that there's no need for maneuverability, just that sustained 9g is probably beyond the point of diminishing returns.  It puts great strain on the airframe, which requires extra weight to be strengthend for it.  it also wears out the aircraft sooner.  One of the reason the USN started restricting the g that should be pulled on its fighters was to extend the life of the airframes.  9g also puts a bigger load on the crew, with the possible of momentary or (relatively) extended G-LOC.  Both F-20s were lost because of this, and no doubt other a/c as well.  7-7.5g is probably enough.  

We are coming through an age of technological surprise in air combat as great or greater than what the Argentinians experienced in the Falklands War with the introduction of the AIM-9L.  Up to that point, air combat techniques dealt with primarily getting on an opponent's tail because (except for long range missile shots), you really needed to be there to get a good shot, be it missiles or guns.  Defensive maneuver tactics focused on preventing your adversary from getting into that position.  What AIM-9L did was allow someone to take a Sidewinder shot from any aspect, and the tactics of the time were not up to dealing with that.  

Similarly, we have now seen the introduction of high-agility, high off-boresight missiles, often cued by a Helmet Mounted Sight (unless you're the F-22).  These have large "no-escape" zones, wherein there is no maneuver the target aircraft can make that will defeat the missile.   A defensive break turn is still something you need to do, but the effectiveness of sustaining it at 9g is probably not all that much better than what you will achieve with 7g against a weapon coming at you from any angle that can turn at 60g  (or 25g for a long range missile), especially one that may still be under power at the time.  

I'm not saying that the maneuverability of a 747 is good enough (unless he has a multi-shot trainable directed energy weapon  :) and that's still in the future), just that 9g probably no longer justifies its cost.  

BTW, the F-8 owed its best-of-the-war win/loss ratio mostly to tactics and training.  F-4 crews had to learn ACM, but also long range intercept, various kinds of ground attack and in USAF's case nuclear strike.  Plus, F-4 crews weren't trained that much in the concept of maneuvering combat in the first part of the war.   F-8s did limited bombing, but first and foremost they lived, breathed and trained for air combat.  Arguably that's why they had the best win/loss ratio up through 1968.  F-4 got to be a lot better once the crews were trained to use the F-4 strengths, including acceleration, fighting in the vertical and to force the MiGs to sustain their turn (where they ran out of energy).  
« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 05:47:35 pm by F-14D »

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #156 on: October 21, 2010, 09:54:08 am »
Regarding the maneuver requirements, I've read, but can't confirm, that the F-35 has some "automated" maneuvering capability. It might be that a future airframe may have a 9g maneuvering requirement or higher under automated control to take evasive action from a missile attack. I'm thinking from the standpoint that the NGAD is looking to be optionally manned, so without a man in it, it's maneuvering capability could be higher and the manned airframe would be built to the same requirements and therefore, the FCS could be built to maintain some of the defensive maneuver capabilities of the unmanned version. After all, the USAF has been pursuing advanced technology to determine whether or not a pilot is conscious. I don't know if the tech is there yet, but that, coupled with advanced automated systems could keep the requirement to withstand high accelerations. Just something to think about.

Of course, as you're all well aware of, with directed energy weaponry becoming more advanced, smaller, and more efficient it may be the maneuvering requirement is downgraded as these weapons become applicable as defense systems for air vehicles. We'll have to see how well it works out in the F-35. Of course, then you have to wonder if such systems are placed in every airframe, or if you just end up with a single "air defense" aircraft flying with the others, sort of like an ECM escort.

Offline SDN

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 17
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #157 on: October 21, 2010, 10:57:47 am »
BTW, the F-8 owed its best-of-the-war win/loss ratio mostly to tactics and training.  F-4 crews had to learn ACM, but also long range intercept, various kinds of ground attack and in USAF's case nuclear strike.  Plus, F-4 crews weren't trained that much in the concept of maneuvering combat in the first part of the war.   F-8s did limited bombing, but first and foremost they lived, breathed and trained for air combat.  Arguably that's why they had the best win/loss ratio up through 1968.  F-4 got to be a lot better once the crews were trained to use the F-04 strengths, including acceleration, fighting in the vertical and to force the MiGs to sustain their turn where they ran out of energy.  

I did read in an excerpt from a book on Constant Peg(I think), that after Joser Satrapa flew the F-4 for the 1st time against a VX-4 pilot(whom he bested), he was shocked at how much power and potential the Phantom had, compared to what he had heard prior to doing so.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #158 on: October 21, 2010, 11:41:34 am »
BTW, the F-8 owed its best-of-the-war win/loss ratio mostly to tactics and training.  F-4 crews had to learn ACM, but also long range intercept, various kinds of ground attack and in USAF's case nuclear strike.  Plus, F-4 crews weren't trained that much in the concept of maneuvering combat in the first part of the war.   F-8s did limited bombing, but first and foremost they lived, breathed and trained for air combat.  Arguably that's why they had the best win/loss ratio up through 1968.  F-4 got to be a lot better once the crews were trained to use the F-04 strengths, including acceleration, fighting in the vertical and to force the MiGs to sustain their turn where they ran out of energy.  

I did read in an excerpt from a book on Constant Peg(I think), that after Joser Satrapa flew the F-4 for the 1st time against a VX-4 pilot(whom he bested), he was shocked at how much power and potential the Phantom had, compared to what he had heard prior to doing so.


I may be remembering wrong, but I believe RADM Paul Gillcrist, who would be in a position to know, opined that the F-4, when flown by a properly trained crew was actually a better air-to-air vehicle than the F-8.   

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #159 on: October 21, 2010, 02:07:02 pm »
I heard from one of the main Rockwell engineers on HIMAT, that one of the results of the program was the realization that supermaneuvrability would cost too much in terms of structures; as previously mentioned in a post, you just hit a point of diminishing returns. We just looked at structures, but other aspects such as aerodynamics, controls, and propulsion might yield similar results.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Maki

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Anytime Baby!!!
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #160 on: October 22, 2010, 11:58:37 am »
Quote
BTW, the F-8 owed its best-of-the-war win/loss ratio mostly to tactics and training.  F-4 crews had to learn ACM, but also long range intercept, various kinds of ground attack and in USAF's case nuclear strike.  Plus, F-4 crews weren't trained that much in the concept of maneuvering combat in the first part of the war.   F-8s did limited bombing, but first and foremost they lived, breathed and trained for air combat.  Arguably that's why they had the best win/loss ratio up through 1968.  F-4 got to be a lot better once the crews were trained to use the F-04 strengths, including acceleration, fighting in the vertical and to force the MiGs to sustain their turn where they ran out of energy. 

This is all true, but the bottom line is that the Phantom wasn't built for the kind of combat it experienced over Vietnam. It's was built to take down targets at long range with Sparrow missiles at high speeds. The people in charge thought BVR was the future of air combat and that subsonic ACM was dead. Vietnam proved that it wasn't. Today we see a lot of the same talk. Of course it might be true that WVR combat is certain death with high off-boresight missiles, but what if that isn't the case in 15 years. Further advancements in stealth or some other technology might prove us wrong. A lot of modern fighters can sustain 9g, it's nothing out of the ordinary.

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #161 on: October 30, 2010, 09:57:43 am »
NG X-47B derived manned design once again.

http://defensetech.org/2005/05/17/liquid-lasers-heating-up/

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #162 on: October 31, 2010, 11:22:52 am »
This is all true, but the bottom line is that the Phantom wasn't built for the kind of combat it experienced over Vietnam. It's was built to take down targets at long range with Sparrow missiles at high speeds. The people in charge thought BVR was the future of air combat and that subsonic ACM was dead. Vietnam proved that it wasn't. Today we see a lot of the same talk. Of course it might be true that WVR combat is certain death with high off-boresight missiles, but what if that isn't the case in 15 years. Further advancements in stealth or some other technology might prove us wrong. A lot of modern fighters can sustain 9g, it's nothing out of the ordinary.

How many kills over the Bekaa valley were guns kills and how many were due to missiles in 1982? IIRC, most were all aspect AIM-9/Python kills, followed by AIM-7's, then some gun kills. I think it's safe to say our missile tech has advanced somewhat since then. I wouldn't use Vietnam as a reference today, for A2A combat, any more than I would Korea or WW2.

Not to mention, stealth technology greatly changes the scenario as well. It may be planes will need guns in the future just to be able to take out vehicles missile seekers can't see. Also, maybe in thirty years directed energy weapons will be truly usable on smaller, tactical, aerial vehicles; in which case, maneuvering becomes somewhat useless.

I can see a future where aerial combat becomes a game of cat and mouse, where our weapons are so good, in and of themselves they can't be avoided if they can locate the target. It will be one of ultra-stealth and high energy weapons for both attack and defense (against missiles). Maybe even the aircraft will have some kind of coating to reflect the high energy weapons away from the vehicle at low angles of incidence. Like a flying wing turning near edge on to bounce/angle the energy away and off into space/the atmosphere. The other area will be in the hypersonic arena, for fast reaction and their speed in and of itself will be difficult to defend against. Of course, I'm right and I'm wrong. That's why the future is so damned hard to predict. ;)

Offline Maki

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Anytime Baby!!!
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #163 on: November 01, 2010, 12:02:10 pm »
Quote
How many kills over the Bekaa valley were guns kills and how many were due to missiles in 1982? IIRC, most were all aspect AIM-9/Python kills, followed by AIM-7's, then some gun kills. I think it's safe to say our missile tech has advanced somewhat since then. I wouldn't use Vietnam as a reference today, for A2A combat, any more than I would Korea or WW2.

I believe some of you have misunderstood me. Technology has improved since Vietnam but the ability of humans to make bad decisions has not. The reference to Vietnam was not about A2A combat of the era (much has changed since then), but about making a poor prediction of what A2A combat was to be. They predicted (prematurely) that BVR combat was the future. The Phantom was built for that. Reality proved that WVR combat was still very much alive. Even you're example of combat over the Bekaa valley shows that most kills were made in WVR combat (some even with guns). Missile technology has improved drastically since then, but I have serious doubt in their effectiveness in stealth vs stealth air combat. I think it's smart that NGAD planner are not discarding maneuverability for this future fighter. It
might prove to be a smart decision. Like you said, the future is hard to predict :)

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1169
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #164 on: November 01, 2010, 05:50:21 pm »
Vietnam is a tricky example to use.  BVR could well have been the future during that period, but during the war politics forced restrictive ROEs on pilots, taking away the BVR option.  BVR wasn't effective in Vietnam because it wasn't employed.  That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been effective.  Part of the reason the AIM-7E did so poorly in Vietnam was due to the fact that it had to be fired in a turning WVR fight that it wasn't suited for.  This of course does not excuse the AIM-9 from missing about 85% of its targets, but it does go to show that the poor AAM performance in Vietnam was due in part at least to factors unrelated to the actual technology of the era.

Offline Maki

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Anytime Baby!!!
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #165 on: November 03, 2010, 12:14:51 pm »
True, the ROE did restrict BVR combat, but I think the decision wasn't purely political. I think proper identification of friend or foe was somewhat of a problem back then. I believe there was an incident were an F-105 was shot down by a friendly at BVR distance. To avoid such problems, pilots were ordered visual ID before firing. Today IFF presumably works like a charm, but in 20 years when stealth fighters become more common, air combat may become more like submarine warfare and IFF may become more tricky.

But to return to the subject, after staring at Boeing's concept drawings, I still couldn't understand the choice of a tailless fighter. I see the huge advantages of making a plane without rudders and tail planes (stealth, less drag, less weight, less trouble for structural engineers...etc), but I'm totally puzzled how they plan on reducing landing speeds and have a decent bring back capability with such low aspect ratio wings and no additional control surfaces. Could we see a return of blown wings in a Navy Fighter or is there some new unclassified technology I'm not aware of ;D? Maybe you guys have some ideas?

Offline SDN

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 17
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #166 on: November 04, 2010, 04:43:58 pm »
For Vietnam it wasn't just ROE/FF that were obstacles but from what I've read, the reliability of the Sparrow to begin with was just bad altogether. The Crusader had the benefit of a gun but in some cases, it jammed during sustained turning.

Though missle technology has advanced, though sensors have enhanced situational awareness exponentially(especially the DAS on the JSF), I still think it's better to have an internal gun than not, as a last resort weapon. Plus, until the military comes up with lasers in operational use as guided weapons, what else could a pilot use once his missles are all expended? The situations upon which this scenario is likely are slim, but a gun can't hurt.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #167 on: November 04, 2010, 04:51:04 pm »
But to return to the subject, after staring at Boeing's concept drawings, I still couldn't understand the choice of a tailless fighter. I see the huge advantages of making a plane without rudders and tail planes (stealth, less drag, less weight, less trouble for structural engineers...etc), but I'm totally puzzled how they plan on reducing landing speeds and have a decent bring back capability with such low aspect ratio wings and no additional control surfaces. Could we see a return of blown wings in a Navy Fighter or is there some new unclassified technology I'm not aware of ;D? Maybe you guys have some ideas?

I doubt it uses blown wings, that would just add weight. It just has good high alpha aero and it's probably also lighter than a conventionally tailed aircraft, because it doesn't have the tail structures themselves and the structures required to support them. Maybe they are planning to land the way the X-31 did with that automated system that brings it in real slow at high alpha then rotates just before landing to avoid a tail strike?

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #168 on: November 05, 2010, 05:11:26 am »
Quote
I still couldn't understand the choice of a tailless fighter. I see the huge advantages of making a plane without rudders and tail planes (stealth, less drag, less weight, less trouble for structural engineers...etc), but I'm totally puzzled how they plan on reducing landing speeds and have a decent bring back capability with such low aspect ratio wings and no additional control surfaces.

It seams you answered your own question 80% of the way. A key to landing a tailless fighter on an aircraft carrier is not to use some new/old fancy control surfaces but to be truly tailless and rather use the power of the engine.



Operationally deployed trust vectoring is still pretty crude not and not as reliable as flight controls but with introduction of fluidic trust vector control you solve that problem too and reduce even more weight

http://www.billcrowther.net/publications/conference/Fluidic_thrust_Vectoring_,RAeS_Cambridge_June_2002.pdf

Third, if you are going to make it tailless, better go all the way and save even more weight and reduce RCS by  loosing the controls on the wings too and again create you own control airflow.

http://www.baesystems.com/AboutUs/ShowcaseUAVDemonstratesFlaplessFlight/index.htm
http://journals.pepublishing.com/content/k7242w814m3194lx/fulltext.pdf

Software will also be the key. You can replace a lot of landing controls and even the pilot with the right kind of software, reducing even more drag and weight




Flight controls are so last century. F-35B is proof that you can land a conventionally looking airplane without any aerodynamic flight controls at 0 airspeed. For SSTOL, it's all about cutting your weight, and being able to distribute your full engine trust in 4 axis. Drag and gravity take care of the other two axis.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 05:13:26 am by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #169 on: November 07, 2010, 11:22:00 pm »
Looking Towards the Next Generation:

The Air Force last week began its search for the replacement to the F-22. This platform, which USAF officials have provisionally dubbed the Next Generation Tactical Aircraft, is eyed for initial operations around 2030. In a notice to industry, Aeronautical Systems Center officials at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, have asked for input on material concepts and technology for this platform. Responses are due by Dec. 17. The Next Gen Tacair aircraft's primary mission will be offensive and defensive counterair, including integrated air and missile defense, close air support, and air interdiction, states the Nov. 3 solicitation. The platform may also fulfill airborne electronic attack and intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance functions, it notes. "It must be able to operate in the anti-access/area-denial environment that will exist in the 2030-2050 timeframe," reads the document. ASC will use the feedback to support Air Combat Command as it refines the aircraft's requirements. (For more, read The Sixth Generation Fighter from the Air Force Magazine archives.)
-----------------------------------------------------
Next Generation Tactical Aircraft, so is this a change in acronym?
Link to solicitation - https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=782e30c9c983f85e7952c2adc426b189&tab=core&_cview=1
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 11:25:29 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #170 on: November 08, 2010, 12:16:27 am »
Quote
Aeronautical Systems Center officials at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, have asked for input on material concepts and technology for this platform. Responses are due by Dec. 17.

How about we make our own responses to requirement and post them all on the Dec 17?
I think that would be fun, especially years down the road when the official ones come to light.

I propose everyone to prepare his idea into 1 page proposal:
First 1/3 of the page to be dedicated a Perspective and/or 3-view of the idea,
Middle 1/3 to be a table with basic specifications and data on the concept
Final 1/3 to be a summary of the basic idea and operation of the proposal

I know this page is for real secret projects but this one will likely take decades to get unveiled....and who knows, maybe some of the officials are reading this forum and take notice our ideas on Dec 17th.
 ::)

We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #171 on: November 08, 2010, 03:09:33 am »
I somehow like the idea.  :) I dont have enough knowledge to design the whole vehicle, but I have some ideas about the operational concept of the future air dominance fighter.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline ubiquitous08

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #172 on: November 08, 2010, 04:56:32 am »
I propose being Boeing / Northrop. I'm thinking YF 23 operational concept (stealth, supercruise, range) with large (2 meter, though it only needs 1m to defeat current russian 2 meter vhf AESA I believe) planform alignment / advent engines, conformal radar arrays (wing leading edges) tailess and stabilator less / essentially a flying wing with forebody. Will have 3 view Dec. Possible visual stealth if metametals make progress within the next 20 years for deployment. If aircraft designed to accept conformal applique coatings, not so ridiculous.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j490R_bJup7yw-14VX1GcXRjTmRA?docId=CNG.56cbb5c689d7c5beef36bbbb590464e3.01

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #173 on: November 08, 2010, 05:43:07 am »
If the mission is air to air how about a cross between the Reaction Engines LAPCAT A2 and the Boeing YAL-1... COIL laser combined with Mach 5 at 80,000 feet. Ought to do the job of shooting down anything and everything...
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline InvisibleDefender

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 152
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #174 on: November 08, 2010, 06:53:08 am »
Looking Towards the Next Generation:

The Air Force last week began its search for the replacement to the F-22. This platform, which USAF officials have provisionally dubbed the Next Generation Tactical Aircraft, is eyed for initial operations around 2030. In a notice to industry, Aeronautical Systems Center officials at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, have asked for input on material concepts and technology for this platform. Responses are due by Dec. 17. The Next Gen Tacair aircraft's primary mission will be offensive and defensive counterair, including integrated air and missile defense, close air support, and air interdiction, states the Nov. 3 solicitation. The platform may also fulfill airborne electronic attack and intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance functions, it notes. "It must be able to operate in the anti-access/area-denial environment that will exist in the 2030-2050 timeframe," reads the document. ASC will use the feedback to support Air Combat Command as it refines the aircraft's requirements. (For more, read The Sixth Generation Fighter from the Air Force Magazine archives.)
-----------------------------------------------------
Next Generation Tactical Aircraft, so is this a change in acronym?
Link to solicitation - https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=782e30c9c983f85e7952c2adc426b189&tab=core&_cview=1

Before everybody gets all excited note: "... Market Research ... No contract is intended to be awarded as a result of this CRFI"
si vis pacem, para bellum

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #175 on: December 13, 2010, 05:00:06 am »
playing around

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #176 on: January 03, 2011, 04:03:07 pm »
The change of name hints more toward an approach that uses a combination of different assets (not neccesary a fighter) to achieve air dominance, instead of building a next generation fighter in its purest sense. 

A fighter must be at the center of any air-superiority plan in my opinion, I don't know what else the Pentagon would think.

Well, maybe the definition of what a fighter is is changing. Why not have a larger platform that can carry more missiles (and potentially shoot down more enemy aircraft), and still be fast and stealthy. If you have smaller air to air unmanned "fighters" to do other fighter tasks.

Some of the proposals look like they don't have enough room for missiles, or a very small bay. Maybe the main weapon will be energy/laser for ground and air targets. In my opinion I think this 6th gen will look a lot different than the traditional Sukhoi, Mig, f-22, f-35.

Offline Firefly 2

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 461
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #177 on: January 03, 2011, 09:35:44 pm »

Well, maybe the definition of what a fighter is is changing. Why not have a larger platform that can carry more missiles (and potentially shoot down more enemy aircraft), and still be fast and stealthy. If you have smaller air to air unmanned "fighters" to do other fighter tasks.


That's going back to the old missileer concept, and I don't know how valid it is nowadays. I seem to remember that BVR engagements remain the exception.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #178 on: January 03, 2011, 10:47:13 pm »
If the mission is air to air how about a cross between the Reaction Engines LAPCAT A2 and the Boeing YAL-1... COIL laser combined with Mach 5 at 80,000 feet. Ought to do the job of shooting down anything and everything...

I agree in that I don't see how any aircraft can survive in the 2030 to 2050 time frame without at least defensive DEW. Wouldn't it be interesting if bombers started to look more like B-17's, with rear, belly and top turret DEW weapons, than sleek B-2's  :D
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #179 on: January 03, 2011, 11:02:48 pm »
I agree in that I don't see how any aircraft can survive in the 2030 to 2050 time frame without at least defensive DEW. Wouldn't it be interesting if bombers started to look more like B-17's, with rear, belly and top turret DEW weapons, than sleek B-2's  :D

It still needs to be fuel sufficient, so the design still needs to look sleek. 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #180 on: March 02, 2011, 11:08:40 pm »
From the Air Force Association:

Generational Talk:

The Air Force is "not backing away" from the challenge posed by the Russian T-50 and Chinese J-20 fifth generation fighters, Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told the Daily Report. "We have extensive [research and development] underway" in technology areas applicable to a sixth generation fighter, he said during an interview in his Pentagon office. These activities include work in the areas of propulsion, sensors, materials, manufacturing, datalinks, apertures, and high-resolution radar, he explained. And "while they're not specific to a mission yet, [these technologies] certainly will lead to such an effort, if we chose to move out on one," Schwartz said. The Air Force has more than "$2 billion in R&D" for these activities, he noted. Plus, the Air Force is investing substantial funds in making the F-22 "all that we can make it be," he emphasized. That initiative is a multi-billion-dollar effort, he said, and one of USAF's "half a dozen or so largest programs." The money is in the service's Fiscal 2012 budget request and "we're committed to that," said Schwartz.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2 billion a year for 6th generation R&D is pretty good considering the Next Generation Bomber got $3.7 billion for the next FIVE YEARS. That's seems like significant research dollars, T-50 and J-20 competition waking the US up a little? I still think 20 F-22's/year until significant F-35's come online would have been nice.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #181 on: March 03, 2011, 03:25:58 pm »
Boeing keeps popping up for the 6th generation fighter, must be assuming this is some of the legacy capability they got when they ate MDD.  Keep in mind that except for  the X-32, Boeing never flew a plane that lit an afterburner or was supposed to go faster than sound.

Let's just hope that all this talk of how we'll deal with PAK-FA et al someday isn't another case of:

"The best they have is not as good as what we haven't got". 

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #182 on: March 03, 2011, 05:46:45 pm »
$2 billion a year for 6th generation R&D is pretty good considering the Next Generation Bomber got $3.7 billion for the next FIVE YEARS. That's seems like significant research dollars, T-50 and J-20 competition waking the US up a little? I still think 20 F-22's/year until significant F-35's come online would have been nice.

I believe the reason why there's a copious amount of money going into this is because the various technologies that accumulate to the 3.7 billion dollars are not dedicated to 6th generation fighter, but rather technologies that can be utilised in future platforms in general, some of which can be applied in the NGB. 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #183 on: June 07, 2011, 01:22:51 pm »
Two videos from Boeing on their 6th Generation Fighter concept. The blurriness is because the presentation was in 3D.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqkJrZQkr8w&feature=player_embedded#at=38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDfqJP34XyU&feature=player_embedded#at=213
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #184 on: June 08, 2011, 02:33:02 pm »
From Stephen Trimble's The DEW Line:

Quote
Apologies for the fuzziness. There's nothing wrong with you computer screen. Boeing presented the videos in 3D, but it's still impressive -- albeit, slightly eye-crossing -- in normal view.

Dan Seal, program manager of Boeing's immersive development environment, briefs reporters on 7 June in St. Louis about the company's new tools for designing the next generation of air dominance fighters.

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/06/videos-a-slightly-fuzzy-look-i.html





Offline Aeroengineer1

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #185 on: June 09, 2011, 09:39:32 am »
I do not have the hardware to confirm this, but I bet that those videos are shown in 3D, or we are looking at a 2D capture of a 3D video.  This is what is causing the fuzzy look.

Adam

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #186 on: June 10, 2011, 12:12:46 am »
That is what the narrator / spokesperson said multiple times - it was just a recording of dual polarised footage.

Offline Maki

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Anytime Baby!!!
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #187 on: July 08, 2011, 02:12:30 pm »
It seem that the Boeing NGAD already has competition from the F-35C. Not exactly an air dominance fighter but the F-35C could be a serious threat to Boeing.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/02/357450/lockheed-f-35c-emerges-as-candidate-for-future-us-navy.html

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #188 on: August 31, 2011, 03:42:13 am »
well, Flight Int. artist was somewhat visionary back in 2003)
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/2003/2003%20-%200804.pdf


(thanks Hesham for finding this stuff)



"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Lauge

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 437
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #189 on: August 31, 2011, 07:02:00 am »
well, Flight Int. artist was somewhat visionary back in 2003)
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/2003/2003%20-%200804.pdf


(thanks Hesham for finding this stuff)

It's a friggin' stealth fighter with friggin' laser beams attached to it's friggin.....er..well, pretty much everywhere.
 
But the illustration, simple as it may be, illustrates one of the advantages of DEW: versatility. Target designation, sensor disruption, active defense (think airborne CIWS), offensive weapon....You gotta love it  B)
 
Of course, we're still some way from fighter-size DEW, but I have no doubt that it's the future.
 
Regards & all,
 
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
"Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the crocoducks of war"

"Swinging across on rigging, cutlass in teeth, is regrettably not a practical means of boarding a spacecraft".
The Tough Guide to the Known Galaxy

Offline Steve Pace

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2269
  • Aviation History Writer
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #190 on: August 31, 2011, 06:55:30 pm »
I found this googling but I have no idea who drew it. -SP
When you know you're right, go ahead.

Offline Raptor_101

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #191 on: August 31, 2011, 10:27:57 pm »
That would be bagera3005's handiwork.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #192 on: September 01, 2011, 01:35:38 am »
bagera3005 is very creative and extremely productive. He invents lots of great pseudo-Boeing or -Lockheed designs that are not based on any actual project (despite the fact that he also does the real ones, too). I told him once that he really ought to label his work accordingly ("fictional design" or "based on an actual design", or at least sign the work for later reference, but he keeps posting his work on several forums and this can be misleading to some people.

Offline totoro

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 244
    • Binkov's Battlegrounds
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #193 on: September 01, 2011, 02:48:31 am »
that doesn't have enough room to house engines and the weapon bays contents, let alone all the other components and fuel. perhaps making it 20% larger in all directions might do the trick.
www.youtube.com/c/binkovsbattlegrounds - military analysis videos

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #194 on: September 01, 2011, 03:36:50 am »
that doesn't have enough room
err...do you have NGAD concept dimensions to state that?
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Online George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 786

Offline dannydale

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 212
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #196 on: September 19, 2011, 06:00:29 pm »
I can see the TX getting produced, FX maybe, but the BX has issues with its cockpit being unrealistically far back. Otherwise it looks like a decent stab at a supersonic stealth aircraft.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7169
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #197 on: September 19, 2011, 11:52:47 pm »
Hey, look! It's EDI, your shipboard computer!!!
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 01:38:05 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline bagera3005

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 75
    • my photobucit
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #200 on: September 27, 2011, 12:15:02 am »
to me that fighter looks like light attack aircraft

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #201 on: October 07, 2011, 02:15:26 pm »
Well, it is supposed to replace the F/A-18E and F Super Hornets so it would to be designed with ground attack capability in mind.  The Navy is basically attempting to resurrect the A-12 Avenger with this aircraft by the looks of it.  Both A/Cs have no rudders and a level of stealth that is unprecedented as a result of the minimization of control surfaces.

That next generation bomber design looks weird.  It's like something out of Battlestar Galactica or something.  I've noticed a lot of complaints about the cockpit being too far aft of the front of the aircraft.  I guess I can't blame them considering how hard it would be to land something like that.

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #202 on: October 08, 2011, 12:29:08 am »
This is boeing's concept for F-X, that is the successor of F-22, not the navy F/A-XX...hence it is an air dominance concept. This not because it has dorsal intakes that it means it is not good for maneuverability; Actually dorsal intakes have their share of aerodynamic advantages.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #203 on: October 08, 2011, 06:13:03 am »
This is boeing's concept for F-X, that is the successor of F-22, not the navy F/A-XX...hence it is an air dominance concept. This not because it has dorsal intakes that it means it is not good for maneuverability; Actually dorsal intakes have their share of aerodynamic advantages.

Compatibility with hard manuevering not being one of them.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #204 on: October 08, 2011, 07:43:03 am »
Not entirely true... http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1161.msg9332.html#msg9332

Besides, how much maneuverability do you expect from the fighter equipped with advanced short-range AAMs, tactical lasers and radar with possibility to switch to the energetic weapon mode for close dogfight? I personally expect lower emphasis on maneuverability compared to the 5th generation.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #205 on: October 08, 2011, 08:19:41 am »
This is boeing's concept for F-X, that is the successor of F-22, not the navy F/A-XX...hence it is an air dominance concept. This not because it has dorsal intakes that it means it is not good for maneuverability; Actually dorsal intakes have their share of aerodynamic advantages.

Compatibility with hard manuevering not being one of them.


That is actually the opposite. Vortex lift fighter exhibit superior performance at high high of attack and sideslip angles with dorsal intake due to the sweeping effect of vortex of the upper region.
If you look at the Boeing design then it is evident why they produced a blended lerx all the way from the nose.


Dorsal intakes show reduction in wetted area; They also can be used as vortex generators themselves for delaying separation aft of the fuselage; They also present with shorter duct reducing skin drag;


The problem is in supersonic were they usually have higher mach numbers inside the inlet thus have shock related losses but active flow control can help that.


Canopy integration is crucial in dorsal inlets and that's why the concept you see has a blended cockpit (surely meant to be use with distributed cameras).


Northop grumman F-X concept has also dorsal intakes.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #206 on: October 08, 2011, 08:47:29 am »
Yeah, that's what you want, a vortex going down the intake.  ::)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #207 on: October 08, 2011, 08:50:34 am »
Not entirely true... http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1161.msg9332.html#msg9332

Besides, how much maneuverability do you expect from the fighter equipped with advanced short-range AAMs, tactical lasers and radar with possibility to switch to the energetic weapon mode for close dogfight? I personally expect lower emphasis on maneuverability compared to the 5th generation.

Yep, and notice they ALWAYS ended up taking them off.  There are tons of ATF conceptual art out there with dorsal intakes (no brainer from an RCS POV) but then when it came to formal proposals none of them had dorsal intakes.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #208 on: October 08, 2011, 08:58:34 am »
Yeah, that's what you want, a vortex going down the intake.  ::)


Man...don't be sarcastic...if you don't understand my post..say it and ask me to be more precise.
I don't tell things out of my hat.


I said: "due to the sweeping of the upper region"...where did you see me saying vortex inside the inlet was a good thing..


Well..since you don't believe me...


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810015531_1981015531.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070006754_2007006182.pdf


That should help you..

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #209 on: October 08, 2011, 09:10:39 am »
This is boeing's concept for F-X, that is the successor of F-22, not the navy F/A-XX...hence it is an air dominance concept. This not because it has dorsal intakes that it means it is not good for maneuverability; Actually dorsal intakes have their share of aerodynamic advantages.

Compatibility with hard manuevering not being one of them.


The fundamental reason why dorsal intake is incompatible with hard maneuvering in a tailess aircraft is because of the human being in the cockpit.   This prevents the plane from pulling hard negative G lest the pilot suffer cerebral hemorrhage.    If the plane is meant to be optionally manned, and designed from the start to be able to pull hard negative Gs when there is no pilot, then there is no issue with dorsal intakes.


If a plane is tailless and pilotless, it can be made more or less aerodynamically symmetrical top and bottom, and be able to pull same hard Gs in either direction.   If it is not completely aerodynamically symmetrical, and the intake must be either on the top of the bottom, then it can always hard maneuver in the other direction to avoid masking the intake while hauling the nose around.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #210 on: October 08, 2011, 03:36:58 pm »
Well..since you don't believe me...


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810015531_1981015531.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070006754_2007006182.pdf


That should help you..

Oh brother.  The first article was from 1981.  Can you think of any fighter programs since then -any- that have seriously proposed a dorsal inlet?  Me either.  The 2nd article you cite is for subsonic, low manueverability, aircraft.  How that is applicable to the topic being discussed is apparently only known by you.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #211 on: October 08, 2011, 03:51:39 pm »
Can you think of any fighter programs since then -any- that have seriously proposed a dorsal inlet?
 

The Gripen. But it was too risky for SAAB, so they went the conservative route.

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #212 on: October 08, 2011, 07:30:41 pm »

The fundamental reason why dorsal intake is incompatible with hard maneuvering in a tailess aircraft is because of the human being in the cockpit.   This prevents the plane from pulling hard negative G lest the pilot suffer cerebral hemorrhage.    If the plane is meant to be optionally manned, and designed from the start to be able to pull hard negative Gs when there is no pilot, then there is no issue with dorsal intakes.


not sure i understand...how does the intake layout or planform layout affect how many negative Gs a pilot can pull? a G is a G regardless of whether you are flying an aircraft or riding a donkey. I must be missing something...


We've talked about this before, but even without a pilot, it is doubtful that we will ever see a 12G UCAV. The penalty in structural weight required to withstands the loads eats into other more useful things, like payload and range. Not to mention that to sustain a 12G maneuver, you need some serious thrust, hence bigger engines, hence more fuel, hence more structure, and so on and so forth.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #213 on: October 08, 2011, 08:06:50 pm »
A pilot can't handle lot of negative Gs.   So pull high G for extreme maneuvering, the plane has to pull positive G.  This means whenever the plane pulls high Gs, any dorsal intake would be on inside of the maneuver trace, and thus be on the wrong side, subject to being masked, or having its intake flow disturbed, by parts of the fuselage.
 
If a plane is pilotless, then it can be built to pull both high positive or negative G.  In this case it doesn't matter whether its intake is dorsal or ventral.  It can simply pull its G in the direction that would put the intake on the outside of the maneuver trace.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #214 on: October 08, 2011, 08:23:43 pm »
Can you think of any fighter programs since then -any- that have seriously proposed a dorsal inlet?
 

The Gripen. But it was too risky for SAAB, so they went the conservative route.

So, like many others, when it came right down to it the dorsal intake didn't earn it's way onboard.  Like I said.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #215 on: October 09, 2011, 12:35:38 am »
... discussed is apparently only known by you.


I will answer you when you learn to speak properly to people....

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #216 on: October 09, 2011, 08:59:05 am »
A pilot can't handle lot of negative Gs.   So pull high G for extreme maneuvering, the plane has to pull positive G.  This means whenever the plane pulls high Gs, any dorsal intake would be on inside of the maneuver trace, and thus be on the wrong side, subject to being masked, or having its intake flow disturbed, by parts of the fuselage.
 
If a plane is pilotless, then it can be built to pull both high positive or negative G.  In this case it doesn't matter whether its intake is dorsal or ventral.  It can simply pull its G in the direction that would put the intake on the outside of the maneuver trace.


Ok, i must have jumped in the conversation a bit late and was puzzled by the wording of your reply. The pilot G tolerance and inlet location stuff is all true. Whether you would want to make an axisymmetrical inlet location to give your UCAV good positive AND negative high G maneuvering is not as clear. As you well know, the Su-27 and F-16 inlets, use parts of the fuselage to realign the flow straight down the inlet for low fan face pressure distortion, so there is some use to being non-axisymmetrical. Then there is the question of masking your inlet to radars. Hard to do with something like a Pitot inlet. Assuming you were somehow able to give your engine good air at high positive and negative alphas, you would end up with a non-LO, higher-than-average structural fraction and thus either short legs or little payload. You'd have to find a CONOPS that justifies such a vehicle to make it worth it.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #217 on: October 09, 2011, 02:03:12 pm »
Assuming you were somehow able to give your engine good air at high positive and negative alphas, you would end up with a non-LO, higher-than-average structural fraction and thus either short legs or little payload.

The YF-22, and YF-23, and F-22 all were designed with LO inlets with excellent performance at high positive and negative AOA and it has definitely proven out in F-22 flight testing.

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #218 on: October 09, 2011, 06:19:39 pm »
How many negative Gs are we talking about? We must be talking three or so max because that's usually the design load factor. Ok, maybe add the 1.5x engineering factor of safety (but you probably deformed the structure at this point) and you get to 4.5Gs.  That's still FAR from 9Gs.
The F-22 and F-23 inlets are not axisymmetric and benefit from some overhang.



There is no free lunch in aircraft design. It's always a trade, and the thing is, it's always worse than you think it's going to be. Every time somebody talks about some great idea that comes for free you find out that almost invariably it affects some other area of design in such a way that the system as a whole is degraded.


All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #219 on: October 09, 2011, 06:42:36 pm »
I'm pretty sure that the design load factor is indeed -3Gs of acceleration so I don't see how the F-22 could pull -9Gs.  Back to the F-X, I'm with Matej in that It does seem that maneuverability may be less important with the design as the next generation appears to require the capability to use high off boresight SRAAMs, directed energy weapons like lasers and Masers as well as highly agile long range Dial-an-effect missiles like JDRADM.  Really it does appear as if the next generation no longer requires your aircraft to engage the enemy by pointing it at them.  You just fire missiles and leave.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #220 on: October 10, 2011, 11:08:13 am »
There won't be an airframe designed for -9g, manned or unmanned, because there isn't a need for it. It's like complaining that the F-22's inlets aren't good for Mach 12. It's a nonsensical argument. As long as the airframe is designed for 9gs manned, or maybe +12/14gs unmanned, you don't need the negative G rating. With the roll rates that can be achieved today, especially unmanned, you just roll and pull. Making such high negative g ratings would just add too much useless structural weight and therefore cost. It's a non starter.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #221 on: October 10, 2011, 01:40:27 pm »
Not to mention the high stress factors on the pilots, which caused fatal crashes by two of the three F-20 Tigershark prototypes when the pilots lost consciousness.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #222 on: October 11, 2011, 02:31:08 pm »
A pilot can't handle lot of negative Gs.   So pull high G for extreme maneuvering, the plane has to pull positive G.  This means whenever the plane pulls high Gs, any dorsal intake would be on inside of the maneuver trace, and thus be on the wrong side, subject to being masked, or having its intake flow disturbed, by parts of the fuselage.
 
If a plane is pilotless, then it can be built to pull both high positive or negative G.  In this case it doesn't matter whether its intake is dorsal or ventral.  It can simply pull its G in the direction that would put the intake on the outside of the maneuver trace.


Ok, i must have jumped in the conversation a bit late and was puzzled by the wording of your reply. The pilot G tolerance and inlet location stuff is all true. Whether you would want to make an axisymmetrical inlet location to give your UCAV good positive AND negative high G maneuvering is not as clear. As you well know, the Su-27 and F-16 inlets, use parts of the fuselage to realign the flow straight down the inlet for low fan face pressure distortion, so there is some use to being non-axisymmetrical. Then there is the question of masking your inlet to radars. Hard to do with something like a Pitot inlet. Assuming you were somehow able to give your engine good air at high positive and negative alphas, you would end up with a non-LO, higher-than-average structural fraction and thus either short legs or little payload. You'd have to find a CONOPS that justifies such a vehicle to make it worth it.

I am not talking about an axial-symmetric intake, but just a conventional dorsal intake.     With a manned aircraft, this would tend to restrict the aircraft's hard maneuverbility because the aircraft must pull positive G to suite the pilot and this would tend to degrade the performance of the intake.    With an unmanned aircraft, a dorsal intake needn't have any effect on the aircraft's manenuverability since the aircraft could always pull high negative G, and in the process allow its ventral intake the full advantage of being totally exposed to undisturbed flow.
 

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #223 on: October 14, 2011, 07:50:41 am »
'old' FA-XX, but now in higher resolution
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #224 on: October 14, 2011, 09:22:03 am »
Quote
'old' FA-XX, but now in higher resolution
Please notice, that this picture shows one of the 'old' F/A-XX as a UCAV. It has no cockpit. Compare it with post #14 & #41.  :)

 
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline red admiral

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 546
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #225 on: October 14, 2011, 12:32:32 pm »
With an unmanned aircraft, a dorsal intake needn't have any effect on the aircraft's manenuverability since the aircraft could always pull high negative G, and in the process allow its ventral intake the full advantage of being totally exposed to undisturbed flow.

You have to bear in mind that it's not just the pilot which is limiting the manoeuvrability of the aircraft. A Nz limit graph will firstly have a section relating to lift limit before moving over towards the structural load limit. You'll find that the speed you can pull -9g or more is actually rather high with today's designs. This is because aerofoils tend to be optimised for lift in the upwards sense. For what you're proposing pulling a large negative Nz would require a much different aerofoil shape - and likely lead to really poor low speed (i.e. take-off and landing) performance.

I'm thinking it would be better to go with a ventral inlet and an aerofoil design that produces reasonable Cls when inverted. For cruise flight at high speed have the vehicle fly upside down so you essentially have a dorsal intake. You don't need much lift in high speed cruise so it may be possible without having a massive wing area. For heavy manoeuvering simply roll the aircraft and use it the "correct" way up. If you're having to do such manoeuvres the time for much signature management is probably over.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #226 on: October 14, 2011, 12:43:28 pm »
Please notice, that this picture shows one of the 'old' F/A-XX as a UCAV. It has no cockpit.
we deliver first&best!:)
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #227 on: November 10, 2011, 10:51:30 pm »
...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline pedrospe

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 261
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #228 on: November 13, 2011, 06:46:40 am »
great pictures ,thanks for posting them.




regards


pedro


Offline shedofdread

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 393
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #230 on: November 17, 2011, 03:08:32 am »
Interesting what Richard McCrary had to say re product development but it's only how motorsport has gone about things since... ooh I don't know - early last century.
 
There are times when I truly dispare of the way [some] defence companies carry on. Just because one has a massive potential budget, doesn't mean one has to spend it and just because there's no pressing need for that which you are working on doesn't mean you can drag your heels. Could this mean they're finally waking up to other ways of working? Hmmmm....
 
S
(NOT holding his breath)

Ian33

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #231 on: November 19, 2011, 05:08:12 am »
The springs to mind the exhaust taken from the hantom Ray for a classified ground testing project. Possible technology transfer from that to this tailess design?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #232 on: January 02, 2012, 08:33:25 am »
from Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems 2012 calendar - via Clindits
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #233 on: January 02, 2012, 09:07:27 am »
from Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems 2012 calendar - via Clindits

Looks like a two engine version of the McDonnell Douglas/British Aerospace/Northrop JSF entry

http://frn.beedall.com/images/jast-md-ng-bae2.jpg
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 358
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #234 on: January 02, 2012, 10:25:55 am »
from Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems 2012 calendar - via Clindits
Slinky! Guess LM liked the way the F-23 looked too  ;D

Offline BDF

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #235 on: January 02, 2012, 10:34:52 am »
That's probably the coolest looking notional 6th Gen fighter concept released so far.  Hopefully we'll actually get to see something like that around 2030...

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #236 on: January 02, 2012, 12:30:33 pm »
from Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems 2012 calendar - via Clindits
Slinky! Guess LM liked the way the F-23 looked too  ;D

I'm with Bobbymike in that it looks more like a rip-off of the McDonnell Douglass/Northrop/BAe JSF submission than Northrop's ATF submission.

In any case, the general consensus among these designs appear to be the deletion of as many control surfaces (especially tail surfaces) as possible as well as dorsal inlets for increased LO against ground radars.  It's just that Northrop and MD were a little ahead of the curve back in the day. ;)

I really am interested in whether these companies actually keep their idea of dorsal inlets considering the possibility that even the next generation of fighters may still need to perform hard maneuvers at alphas above 20 degrees.

It will also be interesting to see how well the F/A-XX submissions can land on a carrier with little to no tail but such capabilities are being developed and tested as we speak so there shouldn't be too much to worry about there.

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 358
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #237 on: January 03, 2012, 06:12:45 am »
Quote
I'm with Bobbymike in that it looks more like a rip-off of the McDonnell Douglass/Northrop/BAe JSF submission than Northrop's ATF submission.

In any case, the general consensus among these designs appear to be the deletion of as many control surfaces (especially tail surfaces) as possible as well as dorsal inlets for increased LO against ground radars.  It's just that Northrop and MD were a little ahead of the curve back in the day. ;)
Don't forget the BAe Replica study too http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1202.msg74535.html#msg74535

I guess it's a configuration those in the know like.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2149
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #238 on: January 03, 2012, 06:46:36 am »
It looks a lot like the supersonic long-range strike model that the Skunk Works showed off in 2006.

I wouldn't read much into it. You'd get put up against a wall and shot at LMT today if you floated an after-JSF concept that looked realistic!

Offline BDF

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #239 on: January 03, 2012, 08:03:31 am »
It looks a lot like the supersonic long-range strike model that the Skunk Works showed off in 2006.

I wouldn't read much into it. You'd get put up against a wall and shot at LMT today if you floated an after-JSF concept that looked realistic!

Yes you can definitely see influences of the LRS model in that design and I totally agree, it’s much like the early ATF concept drawings as none looked anything like the F-22 or YF-23.  I think it does, however, illustrate some of the themes that you can expect to see in the next gen fighter such as the ventral intakes, nearly flat fuselage with all of the shaping on top instead of on the bottom (the fuselage canoe on the F-22 and F-35), no tail and shielded exhaust.  However the one thing that sticks out to me is that it’s too small to be a hi-end air dominance fighter.  Just a guestimate but it doesn’t look much larger than an F-16 or F-35 based on the size of the cockpit and the guy sitting in it.   Still cool as hell though!
 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #240 on: January 03, 2012, 08:40:34 am »
Makes me think of a parasol wing.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #241 on: January 03, 2012, 10:14:42 am »
it’s much like the early ATF concept drawings as none looked anything like the F-22 or YF-23.


I'm not sure; The early ATF concept drawings were not fancy drawings but real configurations that simply did not make it to the final stages; This means they were at least practical; You have to take the actual context for reference, i'm not quite sure you can compare with the 80's even if the actual NG TacAir program is not well defined and thus could change;
It is true that for example boeing NGAD designs changed a lot but they were done on the manufacturer iniative while for NG TacAir this is different, you have an RFP issued;
So i think Boeing, NG, and LM concepts may be not so far away from what we'll see, or at least, they are practical;






Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #242 on: January 03, 2012, 11:57:34 am »
from Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems 2012 calendar - via Clindits

Is it just me, or does that design have more than a bit of BAE Systems influence in it's make-up?
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #243 on: January 04, 2012, 04:14:24 pm »
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/picture-lockheed-reveals-conce.html

Lockheed Martin's 2012 calendar -- which your blogger received in the mail but casually deposited, unopened, in the trash -- contained the company's first concept design for a sixth generation fighter to succeed the F-22 after 2030.

Call her "Miss February".

The US Air Force has already started the search for the F-X fighter to replace the F-22 after 2030. Boeing and Northrop Grumman have already revealed their concept designs. But the conceptual ideas of the USAF's sole fighter supplier had been a closely guarded mystery. Conceptual aircraft designs should not be mistaken for prototype blueprints, but they do offer some insight into the starting assumptions and philosophies.

We asked Lockheed to describe the philosophy behind this concept drawing. Here is the company's emailed response in full:

 
Quote
   This concept originates from our Advanced Development Programs group called the Skunk Works®. The Skunk Works primary objective is to aggressively pursue next generation technology programs and conduct research and development that will allow it to rapidly respond to customer needs. U.S. 5th generation fighters are now operational with the F-22 in the USAF and F-35 soon to be operational for USAF, USN, USMC and our international partners. As with the 4th generation fighters (F-15, F-16, F-18), 5th Gen is poised for growth, and will go through a process of capability upgrades over their service lives. As such, they will be operationally relevant for decades to come. Even with that, it is time to start looking at the technologies that will provide the next quantum leap in capabilities for the next generation of fighters (IOC ~ 2030+). Simply removing the pilot from an aircraft or introducing incremental improvements in signature and range does not constitute a generational leap in capability. These improvements are already being looked at for our 5th generation fighters.

     

     Future fighter requirements are not set and will depend on assessments of future threats that may emerge in the 2030 time frame. Greatly increased speed, longer range, extended loiter times, multi-spectral stealth, ubiquitous situation awareness, and self-healing structures and systems are some of the possible technologies we envision for the next generation of fighter aircraft. Next generation fighter capabilities will be driven by game changing technological breakthroughs in the areas of propulsion, materials, power generation, sensors, and weapons that are yet to be fully imagined. This will require another significant investment in research and development from a standpoint of both time and money. We will continue to investigate technologies that demonstrate great promise, and work closely with our customers to define the future operational concepts and requirements that the next generation of fighter aircraft must fulfill. 

sublight

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #244 on: January 04, 2012, 04:43:11 pm »
Can we expect this to have an automated backup for OBOGS failure, or will there be another brass ring dangling beneath the seat? :)

On the plus side, does the mention of "multi-spectral stealth" mean that visual stealth capabilities will finally emerge into the white world?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2012, 04:59:28 pm by sublight »

Offline datafuser

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 116
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #245 on: January 04, 2012, 10:58:31 pm »
James E. Auer, director of the Center for U.S.-Japan Studies and Cooperation at Vanderbilt University said " 日米両国で足並みを揃え、日本がどの航空機を選定したとしても、第6世代航空機の現実的な共同開発についての協議を開始することが重要である。" which can be translated as "It is important for Japan and the US to start a discussion about co-developing a 6th-generation fighter" at a seminar held in October 2011 at the Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI), a think tank of the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) of Japan.


http://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/events/11100701/summary.html

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #246 on: January 05, 2012, 04:44:55 am »
dorsal intake or not so dorsal intake?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #247 on: January 05, 2012, 05:54:13 am »
Looks like a wing root intake.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline tacitblue

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #248 on: January 05, 2012, 06:58:05 am »
I wonder if a photoshop proficient individual would be so kind as to remove the pelican tail, positioning the wings slightly more aft, and incorporate canards "on" the intakes.  That's a more probable configuration.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #249 on: January 05, 2012, 09:03:08 am »
I wonder if a photoshop proficient individual would be so kind as to remove the pelican tail, positioning the wings slightly more aft, and incorporate canards "on" the intakes.  That's a more probable configuration.

Not really.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #250 on: January 05, 2012, 09:34:46 am »
dorsal intake or not so dorsal intake?

Okay, so now we are looking at what look like DSI intakes.  If they are indeed DSI intakes they're far more highly swept than any I've ever seen.  Where is the initial oblique shock supposed to form on them for supersonic flow compression/retardation?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2012, 09:37:28 am by AAAdrone »

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #251 on: January 05, 2012, 09:39:20 am »
LOT'S of patents have been filled recently by both boeing and LM on air induction precisely to get rid of dsi inlets; LM has been very active on plasma research recently; together with advanced aft cockpit/LERX integration this is why dorsal intakes are now on table (you even have some projects of tangent intakes I.E intake not facing the flow phat but tangent to them).




Offline BDF

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #252 on: January 05, 2012, 12:03:19 pm »
I wonder if a photoshop proficient individual would be so kind as to remove the pelican tail, positioning the wings slightly more aft, and incorporate canards "on" the intakes.  That's a more probable configuration.

Not really.

Yeah I don't buy that either.  What is interesting is they have choosen, at least with this concept, to retain a lateral intake design instead of going witht he dorsal intake direction.  The latter is clearly aimed at low broaband signatures so one wonders if that is possible with this configuration.
 

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #253 on: January 05, 2012, 12:47:27 pm »
Well, i would wait to have a higer res image to be sure it is not a complete dorsal intake (you have black zone under the nose too).


That's a clever arrangement though;


Online George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 786
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #254 on: January 05, 2012, 01:59:17 pm »
Let's be optimistic and assume that we might (a) have a 6th gen fighter program at all and (b) first flight of the prototype will occur within the next 20 years.  A quick glance at our own ATF and pre-ATF topics suggests the actual air vehicle will not at all resemble any of the artists' conceptions, so why not relax and enjoy the view.   :)

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #256 on: January 06, 2012, 01:11:50 pm »
The only certainty I can conclude is that it won't be designated the F-28. ;)  Also am I the only one getting the idea that this aircraft is too small to house a good-sized weapons payload due to how flat it is and the nose is a little oddly shaped to house a radar?  I think I should just go with GeorgeA and say that we should take this design with a huge grain of salt as a production model will certainly look almost completely unlike this.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 05:01:42 pm by AAAdrone »

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #257 on: January 06, 2012, 02:13:19 pm »
Can we not make USAF lead agency on this one? How about giving USN a crack?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #258 on: January 06, 2012, 05:21:19 pm »
Can we not make USAF lead agency on this one? How about giving USN a crack?

Why?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Gridlock

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #259 on: January 07, 2012, 12:37:57 am »
The only certainty I can conclude is that it won't be designated the F-28. ;)  Also am I the only one getting the idea that this aircraft is too small to house a good-sized weapons payload due to how flat it is and the nose is a little oddly shaped to house a radar?


What would "the f19" look like if it were a concept in a 1984 LM calendar? This drawing is very pretty but not much use.


I assume it has a conceptual DE weapons payload and a conceptual distributed-node radar integrated into the multi-spectral skin material etc etc. it's powered by unicorn tears.

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #260 on: January 07, 2012, 02:28:59 am »
That is a technologie concept drawing, not a pretty drawing; Early ATF drawing (i mean the official ones) were not fancy drawing but real configurations; The flat nose is a new feature compensated by distributed sensors.




Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 358
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #261 on: January 07, 2012, 09:24:53 am »
The only certainty I can conclude is that it won't be designated the F-28. ;)  Also am I the only one getting the idea that this aircraft is too small to house a good-sized weapons payload due to how flat it is and the nose is a little oddly shaped to house a radar?


What would "the f19" look like if it were a concept in a 1984 LM calendar? This drawing is very pretty but not much use.


I assume it has a conceptual DE weapons payload and a conceptual distributed-node radar integrated into the multi-spectral skin material etc etc. it's powered by unicorn tears.
And it transforms into a robot  ;D

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2152
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #262 on: January 07, 2012, 09:54:09 am »
Will it come with a Battloid mode, between fighter and robot forms?
 
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #263 on: January 09, 2012, 03:54:26 pm »
did everyone noticed?





« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 03:57:49 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #264 on: January 09, 2012, 09:25:58 pm »
Northrop Grumman's signature concept of kite shape for scaling up the wings to fit different type of missions and requirements

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #265 on: January 09, 2012, 09:33:10 pm »
I see changes in wing span between the two from low to high Aspect Ratio thanks to a wingtip swap or mod.  Not exactly fancy shape-shifting nanotech but such an ability to scale the wings like that will help make an aircraft that's highly efficient and effective in all major flight regimes.  Just add in a nice variable cycle engine (or any other engine system that can be optimized for highly performance/efficiency for said flight regimes) and voila, The ultimate fighter.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 11:10:35 pm by AAAdrone »

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #266 on: January 09, 2012, 10:37:45 pm »
did everyone noticed?



Yes i did;


and people will say "hey it's just a fancy drawing!"

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #267 on: January 10, 2012, 01:40:34 am »
Quote

This is about networking a piloted 6th generation fighter with similarly shaped, presumably smaller unmanned versions of the same, right? Where is this picture taken from? And does anyone know more about this concept?

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #268 on: January 10, 2012, 01:59:46 am »
was taken from a presentation at the AFA convention in sept 2011.


The first one is from a NG artist.




the AFA presentation is presumably for F/A-XX (US navy) while the first is a generic concept.






Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #269 on: January 10, 2012, 02:07:26 am »
Lockheed Martin's 2012 calendar -- which your blogger received in the mail but casually deposited, unopened, in the trash -- contained the company's first concept design for a sixth generation fighter to succeed the F-22 after 2030.
Call her "Miss February".

I have a personal theory about this piece of artwork, for what it's worth. It seems from looking at the picture, and especially the cockpit area, that the image was flattened, either as a result of wrong image manipulation (capture from a 4:3 image that was stretched unto a 16:9 rez screen for instance) or on purpose to make it look more slender and dramatic.

So here is a comparison between the original artwork (top) and the same once a 100% (width) by 140% (height) ratio has been applied. To me it seems a lot more realistic that way, and shows even more resemblance to McDonnell Douglas's and Northrop's YF-23 design.

Also, the second image shows the same pics with +1.89 gamma correction applied. This clearly exposes the design as having LATERAL, not dorsal intakes.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #270 on: January 10, 2012, 05:36:37 am »
Lockheed Martin's 2012 calendar -- which your blogger received in the mail but casually deposited, unopened, in the trash -- contained the company's first concept design for a sixth generation fighter to succeed the F-22 after 2030.
Call her "Miss February".

I have a personal theory about this piece of artwork, for what it's worth. It seems from looking at the picture, and especially the cockpit area, that the image was flattened, either as a result of wrong image manipulation (capture from a 4:3 image that was stretched unto a 16:9 rez screen for instance) or on purpose to make it look more slender and dramatic.

So here is a comparison between the original artwork (top) and the same once a 100% (width) by 140% (height) ratio has been applied. To me it seems a lot more realistic that way, and shows even more resemblance to McDonnell Douglas's and Northrop's YF-23 design.

Also, the second image shows the same pics with +1.89 gamma correction applied. This clearly exposes the design as having LATERAL, not dorsal intakes.

Interesting theory but I doubt it.  Unless you had a manager do it, it's not THAT hard to get things right proportionally, and secondly, can you say "big ass hump" there in your "fixed" image?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Mat Parry

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 404
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #271 on: January 10, 2012, 05:38:25 am »
did everyone noticed?
morphing wings or (dare I say it) switchblade style forward folding wings?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 01:16:49 pm by flateric »

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #272 on: January 10, 2012, 05:47:41 am »
I agree with sferrin; The support in the canopy seems to intend the canopy is very long.


« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 01:17:30 pm by flateric »

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #273 on: January 10, 2012, 08:03:06 am »
It's interesting how Northrop's advise about the designs of a jet for a movie could come out so similar to their own official PR, 6 years later.
As for morphing wings; the movie version had aeroelastic tech which was utilised to create control surfaces from flexing of the wing.


« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 01:17:55 pm by flateric »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #274 on: January 10, 2012, 08:11:32 am »

It's interesting how Northrop's advise about the designs of a jet for a movie could come out so similar to their own official PR, 6 years later.
As for morphing wings; the movie version had aeroelastic tech which was utilised to create control surfaces from flexing of the wing.


More likely they just said "hey do we still have that graphic around?  Well slap THAT on the press release."

Mod edit: Do not overqoute! This is also valid for other members. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6659.0.html
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 09:23:23 am by Matej »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Gridlock

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #275 on: January 10, 2012, 08:22:53 am »
Folding wings are all the rage now, huh? Boeing 119, NGAD, RQ170?

Offline jjnodice

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #276 on: January 10, 2012, 10:49:16 am »
was taken from a presentation at the AFA convention in sept 2011.

Are these presentations online?  I have tried a search but did not find anything.  Thanks for any links.

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #277 on: January 10, 2012, 11:38:51 am »
Quote
morphing wings or (dare I say it) switchblade style forward folding wings?

I originally thought they were morphing, but then I was skeptical about whether the wings would have to increase in mass in order to change like what may be shown in the drawing assuming camber thickness and other airfoil properties aren't changed.  It's kind of hard to tell exactly how the change in span and aspect ratio occurs.

What I can tell is that in both pictures the wings have a point on the span where there is a line indicating where the wing could fold about but it is also worth noting that the aircraft shape looks completely consistent across both graphics in terms of how the fuselage looks and the wings look from the roots to the "folding line".  It appears to be the wingtips that are the only variable in the equation in terms of looks, camber thickness, span, chord length, etc.

There doesn't appear to be any glove housing the necessary mechanisms for rotating the wings forward and where the wing folds into isn't shown anywhere.  That and folding wings are an old idea that have their share of problems such as increased weight, maintenance intensity, etc.  As for morphing, I may have to side with morphing after recently looking at various ideas for how a wing could morph in a Materials and Design paper.

It is possible that the "folding line" is actually a sheathe for a telescoping material that is free to elongate itself at the push of a switch.  This would mean that the increase in span would decrease the camber thickness in order to conserve mass and allow the wing to fit inside of itself in a telescope manner.  The changes in the wingtip shape from a tapered wingtip to a trapezoid can also be attributed to various smart materials, piezoelectric actuators and other wing-morphing technologies.

@Gridlock Every major defense contractor has speculated that the next generation of aircraft must be highly efficient in every major flight regime of a fighter.  This means from subsonic to supersonic (high Mach 2 or possibly better) as well as a very wide range of altitudes.  It's supposed to put 4th and 5th gen fighters to shame in every conceivable way in terms of this criterion.

Wing morphing is just the future way to achieve this without the complexity and weight penalties associated with complex folding mechanisms.  We can also expect to see highly advanced propulsion systems (I'm thinking variable cycle engines that blow away even the YF-120) to be used for the same reason of making the 6th generation aircraft have vastly superior range, speed, mission radius, etc. compared to contemporary fighters.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/October%202009/1009fighter.aspx

Quote
Generation 5: All-aspect stealth with internal weapons, extreme agility, full-sensor fusion, integrated avionics, some or full supercruise (F-22, F-35).

Potential Generation 6: extreme stealth; efficient in all flight regimes (subsonic to multi-Mach); possible “morphing” capability; smart skins; highly networked; extremely sensitive sensors; optionally manned; directed energy weapons.

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #278 on: January 10, 2012, 12:10:24 pm »
was taken from a presentation at the AFA convention in sept 2011.

Are these presentations online?  I have tried a search but did not find anything.  Thanks for any links.


Unfortunately...nothing seems online.

Offline drakken

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #279 on: January 10, 2012, 01:02:35 pm »
That's funny, ;D
Some years ago, I have imagined a similar design for an european 5th gen fictionnal fighter called Squale.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 01:29:24 pm by flateric »

sublight

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #280 on: January 10, 2012, 02:04:36 pm »
"Miss February" is never gonna happen. We went from 5% of all the planes in our military being drones in 2005 to over 30% today.  We have 10,767 piloted aircraft right now and that number is falling quickly.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77662547/1105-001

Offline jjnodice

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #281 on: January 10, 2012, 02:47:08 pm »
Are these presentations online?  I have tried a search but did not find anything.  Thanks for any links.

Unfortunately...nothing seems online.

Thank you for your reply.

Offline Kryptid

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 275
    • Unbuilt Aircraft Projects on Facebook.
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #282 on: January 10, 2012, 02:58:21 pm »
About Miss February; perhaps it really is as skinny as it looks in the original image. It may look stretched compared to modern designs, but if the future of aircraft implies even higher kinematic advantages than the F-22, then increasing the fineness ratio of the aircraft is one way to help attain that. I know that has its own disadvantages (less fuel volume unless the aircraft is extra long) but there may be ways of dealing with it (higher efficiency engines, for example). Might the relatively small nose imply that LM expects high performance radars to be compact enough to fit in such a small space in the future?

Those inlets greatly interest me. I would have figured that having a sharply-chined portion of the aircraft going straight down the inlet throat would be an invitation to vortex ingestion. Perhaps 6th generation engines will have better tolerance to turbulence?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 03:00:58 pm by Kryptid »
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #283 on: January 10, 2012, 03:39:55 pm »
About Miss February; perhaps it really is as skinny as it looks in the original image. It may look stretched compared to modern designs, but if the future of aircraft implies even higher kinematic advantages than the F-22, then increasing the fineness ratio of the aircraft is one way to help attain that. I know that has its own disadvantages (less fuel volume unless the aircraft is extra long) but there may be ways of dealing with it (higher efficiency engines, for example). Might the relatively small nose imply that LM expects high performance radars to be compact enough to fit in such a small space in the future?

Those inlets greatly interest me. I would have figured that having a sharply-chined portion of the aircraft going straight down the inlet throat would be an invitation to vortex ingestion. Perhaps 6th generation engines will have better tolerance to turbulence?

If the control surfaces that actually are present on the tail are large like the F-23A's then having a long aircraft will certainly allow for a large moment arm and coupled with the lift generated by these butterfly tails (that might be able to vary their orientation like the F-23A's) will allow for a very strong pitching moment.  If the fineness ratio is large enough and the wings are on a good moment arm then roll rates will be quite good considering the moment of inertia about the rolling axis being so small.

About the nose, I didn't remember it in one of my earlier posts on here but I was reminded that the radar will likely not be centralized in a nose anymore.  The array will be distributed across the surface in a way not too dissimilar to the F-35's DAS and EOTS suites.  There may be a large number of small AESA radar arrays embedded all throughout that airframe.  In that article I posted in my previous post the distributed array is mentioned by Boeing and NG but LockMart didn't seem so fond of the concept at first due to the issues of maintaining something so heavily integrated into the structure.

The inlets do indeed confuse me as well.  I don't see what looks like a typical boundary flow diverter so I initially thought DSI but apparently I was wrong.  I can't quite exactly visualize where the initial oblique shock on the inlets are supposed to form for initial supersonic flow compression and retardation and I ultimately just don't see those inlets as being efficient without some way to obtain and maintain good laminar flow if those are supposed to be a return to the days of wing-root intakes like the HP  Victor or Sea Vixen sans boundary layer flow diverters.  DSI used a pressure field generated by a bump to cause the boundary layer to spill away from the inlet throat but I don't see a bump of any sort.

Perhaps LockMart is assuming the aircraft's fuselage will have a newfangled way to suck all boundary layers off of the fuselage via some magical porous multi-spectral stealth material to obtain the holy grail of perfectly laminar flow all around the aircraft?  If so, what about having that chine going into the intake?  Why would LockMart do that?


Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #284 on: January 10, 2012, 04:07:41 pm »
Just for ref, don't forget that the GD submission for the ATF had the RADAR located in the forward end of each chine on either side of the fuselage and would have had the IRST in the nose.

Offline Kryptid

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 275
    • Unbuilt Aircraft Projects on Facebook.
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #285 on: January 10, 2012, 07:16:33 pm »
Having several smaller arrays distributed around the aircraft sounds good for covering all look angles, but what would that mean for long distance detection? Can a series of small radars see as far away as a single, larger radar? Or would these aircraft rely on a combination of ultra-low RCS and data-linking to insure that they see the enemy first?
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #286 on: January 10, 2012, 07:41:49 pm »
And also maintainance issues as well.  A skin of intergrated sensors of different types may sound futuristic and cool but having the radar in a form of large solid disk is alot easier to maintain and fix than having numerous of tiny arrays covering all over the aircraft.   

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #287 on: January 10, 2012, 09:24:09 pm »
"Miss February" is never gonna happen. We went from 5% of all the planes in our military being drones in 2005 to over 30% today.  We have 10,767 piloted aircraft right now and that number is falling quickly.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77662547/1105-001

I was a bit wary of that quote, so I looked up some approximate Wikipedia numbers - the drones that make up that 30% include smaller vehicles like the RQ-7 and RQ-11; drones that I wouldn't entirely consider a "warplane", especially with hobbyists making RC planes larger than them. That's just pure opinion though and those drones are a lot more advanced than something you'd find at a store.

Still, if we did cut out the drones that weren't turboprop / turbofan powered, but also included all the turbo___ ones that are planned (not including the RQ-170), they would only make up about 6% of the US armed force's flying fleet. I'll have to try and do some more number comparisons. I just think that the notion of 1/3 is silly.

Offline sanjeev.k

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 19
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #288 on: January 11, 2012, 12:08:45 am »
Quote
morphing wings or (dare I say it) switchblade style forward folding wings?

I originally thought they were morphing, but then I was skeptical about whether the wings would have to increase in mass in order to change like what may be shown in the drawing assuming camber thickness and other airfoil properties aren't changed.  It's kind of hard to tell exactly how the change in span and aspect ratio occurs.

What I can tell is that in both pictures the wings have a point on the span where there is a line indicating where the wing could fold about but it is also worth noting that the aircraft shape looks completely consistent across both graphics in terms of how the fuselage looks and the wings look from the roots to the "folding line".  It appears to be the wingtips that are the only variable in the equation in terms of looks, camber thickness, span, chord length, etc.

There doesn't appear to be any glove housing the necessary mechanisms for rotating the wings forward and where the wing folds into isn't shown anywhere.  That and folding wings are an old idea that have their share of problems such as increased weight, maintenance intensity, etc.  As for morphing, I may have to side with morphing after recently looking at various ideas for how a wing could morph in a Materials and Design paper.

It is possible that the "folding line" is actually a sheathe for a telescoping material that is free to elongate itself at the push of a switch.  This would mean that the increase in span would decrease the camber thickness in order to conserve mass and allow the wing to fit inside of itself in a telescope manner.  The changes in the wingtip shape from a tapered wingtip to a trapezoid can also be attributed to various smart materials, piezoelectric actuators and other wing-morphing technologies.


Wing morphing is just the future way to achieve this without the complexity and weight penalties associated with complex folding mechanisms. 

Interestingly enough, there is an old artists impression of a MiG 1.42 concept (quite prevalent in the 1990's) that seems to depict
an aircraft with slightly downturned wingtips (along with higly blended intakes and a sharply canted inward tails). See
http://www.aviation.ru/MiG/39/MiG-1.42.gif  (its the 2nd image from the top).
 
I am not sure if MiG ever intended morphing wings for this particular 1.42 concept (assuming of course that its a valid engineering artists impression from the Mikoyan SDB and not someone's artistic fantasy)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #289 on: January 11, 2012, 08:31:43 am »
Speaking of drones this was inserted into the last paragraph of a Yahoo News story:

The need for faster and more nimble combat drones will likely only climb, though, with the Air Force specifically mentioned as having a sound barrier smashing "super/hypersonic" remote fighter already in development.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 300
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #290 on: January 11, 2012, 01:16:52 pm »
Head of Skunk works answers the question:
@dewline



Offline ouroboros

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #291 on: January 14, 2012, 01:47:42 am »
Wasn't there some work a while back for an inlet device that sort of subdivides the inlet volume into a dense pack of converging tubes/channels to emulate a single larger converging inlet, but allowed both finer control of the overall air stream, allowed a potentially shorter inlet, and doubled as a radar blocker? Looked from the front like a grid of square or hex channels. That might provide the means of suppressing the vortexes coming off the chines once past the inlet lip. Doesn't solve the inlet lip initial shock issues though.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #292 on: January 14, 2012, 02:21:22 pm »
Wasn't there some work a while back for an inlet device that sort of subdivides the inlet volume into a dense pack of converging tubes/channels to emulate a single larger converging inlet, but allowed both finer control of the overall air stream, allowed a potentially shorter inlet, and doubled as a radar blocker? Looked from the front like a grid of square or hex channels. That might provide the means of suppressing the vortexes coming off the chines once past the inlet lip. Doesn't solve the inlet lip initial shock issues though.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2420.msg95075.html#msg95075

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2453
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #293 on: January 16, 2012, 02:48:57 pm »
Just found at the facebook-page from the "Combat Aircrfat Monthly" and posted by "Jantex Airlines" alias the "SR-38 Black Mamba" !  :D

Deino
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #294 on: February 26, 2012, 10:01:40 pm »
Our Limited Horizon:

The Air Force has its "hands full" with delivering on a few key programs and staving off financial problems, leaving little room for inventing the next generation of air dominance fighter, said the service's leadership."We need to focus on [generation] five before we start investing heavily in Gen 6," Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said in a press conference Feb. 24 at AFA's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla. "That's what requires our maximum management attention,” he added. Technology efforts are underway in stealth, apertures, propulsion, electronic warfare, and other "key areas," and "we'll keep the seed corn going," said Schwartz. "But we're not going to get this programmatic definition" of a sixth generation fighter, he said. "I just don't see that as being a valuable use of our limited 'bandwidth,'" he added. At the same event, Secretary Michael Donley said a sixth generation fighter is a "good question for a couple of Chiefs and Secretaries after us."
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline dark sidius

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 364
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #295 on: February 27, 2012, 12:31:00 am »
I think we see the 6th g fighter after USAF invest in the new bomber. It will be the programm priority after the LRS-B in 2025.

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 288
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #296 on: February 27, 2012, 03:58:02 am »
Here's a bit of PS manipulation of Deino's picture, to show the wraparound nature of the Black Mamba engine inlets.

Cheers, Woody


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #297 on: February 29, 2012, 09:48:38 pm »
Thinking Beyond the F-22: Research into a sixth generation fighter to succeed the F-22 is "going forward," according to Lt. Gen. Hawk Carlisle, Air Staff lead for operations, plans, and requirements. "We're learning a lot . . . but we're in a learning stage," said Carlisle, answering a question on this after his AFA-Air Force Breakfast Program address in Arlington, Va., on Tuesday.As with the new long-range strike bomber, the Air Force will "freeze" requirements at some point in order to get a defined capability going, he said. Service officials would then focus on "spiraling in" new capabilities as they become necessary or affordable, said Carlisle. Because funds are so tight, "we have to have very high technology readiness levels and also manufacturing levels" in order to "produce an airplane that is affordable for the American people," he said. Carlisle noted that the next generation of aircraft would be "extremely low observable" rather than simply "very low observable." The difference is not simply the addition of electronics, networking, and cyber, he said. "There is active [stealth], passive [stealth] as well as other techniques that aid in that capability,” he explained. (See also Requirements Discipline and Sixth Gen and Our Limited Horizon.)
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline BDF

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #298 on: March 02, 2012, 06:04:01 pm »

Thinking Beyond the F-22: snip ...


Carlisle noted that the next generation of aircraft would be "extremely low observable" rather than simply "very low observable." The difference is not simply the addition of electronics, networking, and cyber, he said. "There is active [stealth], passive [stealth] as well as other techniques that aid in that capability,” he explained. (See also Requirements Discipline and Sixth Gen and Our Limited Horizon.)


Very interesting in that this is the first public mention of ELO from the USAF or a contractor to my knowledge.  I think Sweetman puts that threshold at -70dBsm.  What is interesting is the mention of active measures which I believe is also a first mention publicly.  I wonder if they're aiming for active to counter low frequencies and more traditional shaping/materials approach for high frequencies.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #299 on: March 07, 2012, 01:58:02 am »
The number one place to use active stealth methods would be to hide the aircraft's own radar antenna. This would also require far less power and raw performance and technology then attempting to do anything about the signature of the entire aircraft.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2149
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #300 on: March 11, 2012, 09:31:41 am »
Good point, Sea Skimmer. Raises the prospect of plasma - as discussed by ITAE -  particularly since the bomber is likely to be a high-altitude type).


Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #302 on: March 22, 2012, 04:42:41 pm »
fresh news, as always...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #303 on: March 22, 2012, 04:44:46 pm »
fresh news, as always...

Sarcasm?  ;D
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #304 on: March 22, 2012, 05:00:10 pm »
kind of...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 596
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #305 on: March 23, 2012, 02:43:03 am »
I noted in a summary report of a recent meeting discussing the F-35 that the USN reiterated that it was still studiying the NGAD.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/no-more-money-to-cover-f-35-delays-says-usaf-369838/
Nice to see that after the JSF program was touted as the last manned combat aircraft when UCAV appeared to be the only way forward, focus is now going towards both the Navy's NGAD and the USAF New Bomber projects, that should breath a bit more life into the US Defence industry
As to the F/A-XX i doubt we'll see much requirement definition untill the end of the decade, for now thay are seeing what technology is on offer or under development, and what the potential opposition are working on to determine what sort of threat they will ahve to deal with. They will