USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis [2008- 2025]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Curious if it was the Lady liberty 'art' purely speculation, what would that say in terms of stealth? and other factors cause like i love the design of the 2012 'art' but compared to Tailless designs Range, Payload, etc.
 
bobbymike said:
My WAG it won’t be tailless it will be closer to that “Lady Liberty” design from awhile ago.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think this is the right direction to go in. But I admit I am probably overly skeptical of completely tailless designs. In my amateur opinion a configuration with a shallow V-tail or Pelikan tail represents a good compromise for a fighter while still enabling it to achieve a high level of stealth. For a dedicated strike or attack aircraft however I can easily envision the sort of flying wing designs we keep seeing as representing the future.

When was this design dubbed "Lady Liberty"? I wish there were a few more photos of it. Very nice looking but from the two perspectives it was shown it seems unrealistically flat.

It's true that most of the concepts for NGAD (or whatever acronym it currently is) and F/A-XX show flying wings and such but just remember all of the concepts and art that was released by contractors vying to win the ATF contract. While some had some basis in the actual designs of those companies others were simply fake to confuse the competition, the Soviets, and whoever else might be watching.

My favorite beautifully drawn example from LM which Sferrin posted in the ATF thread. It had no relation to the design Lockheed was working on. I think I first saw it in an old Osprey book on stealth aircraft (must have been published sometime in the '80s) that I got from my dad.
5759319192_e92939a272_o-jpg.535327


With all of the CGI these days it's probably easier than ever for a company to come up with something to show to the public. I don't think NGB is a good comparison because once it was determined that NGB was going to be subsonic there really was only direction to go with in order to achieve maximum stealth, a flying wing. And once they selected Northrop? Well by then it was a guarantee it would greatly resemble the B-2.

Time will tell for sure. But just look at the BAE Tempest-GCAP or FCAS to see what others are doing and I don't know if it's quite as likely those countries are going the extra mile to be misleading the competition.
 
Last edited:
Colonial-Marine said:
My favorite beautifully drawn example from LM which Sferrin posted in the ATF thread. It had no relation to the design Lockheed was working on. I think I first saw it in an old Osprey book on stealth aircraft (must have been published sometime in the '80s) that I got from my dad.
5759319192_e92939a272_o-jpg.535327
Click to expand...
That picture brings back memories from 1990.

1707303925953.png 1707303939551.png
1707303969947.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A recent study indicated that lower cost UCAVs, and more of them, is likely the preferred route. This seems to deviate from the recent statement that a CCA might cost 1/3 of an F-35, although that figure was given as more of an absolute ceiling given the context. A previous game last year (that unfortunately I cannot locate) involving another group had the same take away: they opted for more and cheaper UAVs, many of them disposable or at least expendable, rather then more reusable equipment with more capability.

www.defenseone.com

Robot wingmen vs. China: What a think tank’s wargame revealed about a key USAF concept

As the Air Force contemplates a range of price points, the tabletop exercise suggests cheaper is better.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com
 
I think that is the way the USAF is going Josh_TN, having just the manned variant of the NGAD as the air controller with twin seats controlling the far more numerous CCA UCAVs into battle and keeping far away from the fight.
 
TomcatViP said:
Humm... I would prefer having UAS controlled by a Space Marines in a stealthy orbital control station. No need for a twin seat.
Click to expand...

Given the new Transport Layer of the proliferated satellite constellation, orbital control may be actually achievable (with enough on board automation for realtime reactions). If nothing else using something “RQ-180” or B-21 as a relay for satellite commands should be doable, so long as control only required periodic decisions and other inputs.
 
Have any of you seen the Boeing patent with the NGAD in it? I would even go as far to argue that it may be for the F/A-XX program only because of my experience working with the KFIRs and what not seeing the high angles of attack and approach speed it would seem that this patent for it would be a solution to the need for lower landing speeds aboard carriers.
 

Attachments

  • US10967957-20210406-D00000.png
    US10967957-20210406-D00000.png
    6.7 KB · Views: 219
  • US10967957-20210406-D00002.png
    US10967957-20210406-D00002.png
    6.9 KB · Views: 214
  • Phantom Works (4).mp4_snapshot_00.04_[2023.02.28_21.16.39].jpg
    Phantom Works (4).mp4_snapshot_00.04_[2023.02.28_21.16.39].jpg
    314.5 KB · Views: 263
  • 152112-6af4728b5582d38b0b4a7594df7dc36e.jpg
    152112-6af4728b5582d38b0b4a7594df7dc36e.jpg
    16.7 KB · Views: 310
Last edited:
There is only one thing that I do not like about this Boeing design and that is the side mounted air intakes, I do not know what makes Boeing choose exotic air intakes over standard designs? Lets see what happens to this design between now and contract award.
 
FighterJock said:
There is only one thing that I do not like about this Boeing design and that is the side mounted air intakes, I do not know what makes Boeing choose exotic air intakes over standard designs? Lets see what happens to this design between now and contract award.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the ACWFT study? That may elude to some of the design considerations behind the top mounted air intakes, maybe the fuselage ahead of the intake allows for passive porosity to grant air flow.
 
specializedoptions1@gmail said:
Have any of you seen the Boeing patent with the NGAD in it? I would even go as far to argue that it may be for the F/A-XX program only because of my experience working with the KFIRs and what not seeing the high angles of attack and approach speed it would seem that this patent for it would be a solution to the need for lower landing speeds aboard carriers.
Click to expand...
Which patent is this from if you don't mind me asking
 
specializedoptions1@gmail said:
Have any of you seen the Boeing patent with the NGAD in it? I would even go as far to argue that it may be for the F/A-XX program only because of my experience working with the KFIRs and what not seeing the high angles of attack and approach speed it would seem that this patent for it would be a solution to the need for lower landing speeds aboard carriers.
Click to expand...
Is that showing deployable canards?
 
Interesting to see canards on a USAF fighter, with the USAF being so anti canard in the past I wonder why now?
 
FighterJock said:
Interesting to see canards on a USAF fighter, with the USAF being so anti canard in the past I wonder why now?
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think this design isn't for the Air Force, but rather the Navy. I mean, if you look at the markings around the air intakes on some of the renders, it appears to be Navy style markings which would allude to the fact that it may be for Carrier based work. Hence why it might need the canards to reduce the landing speed for delta wing configured aircraft which inherently has a much higher landing speed as we've learned from historical examples.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
www.defenseone.com

Northrop will not bid on Air Force’s new fighter

The company's decision leaves Boeing, Lockheed Martin to compete to build the Next Generation Air Dominance jet.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com

Well, I’m frankly not sure how I feel about Northrop Grumman forgo bidding as a prime for USAF NGAD. It remains to be seen how they are positioning themselves for the naval F/A-XX, since beating the current Navy fighter incumbents, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, would be challenging but certainly not impossible.
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about this lately, and I wonder if Northrop Grumman dropping out is a bad sign for the program.

The last time they 'passed' like this on a program it was the A-12. Northrop had recent experience with the B-2, and had a good idea how much the A-12 would cost, which was much more than the Navy wanted to pay, so they submitted a non-compliant (but realistic) bid, which was their way of getting out.

I wonder if something similar just happened. Did NG drop out of the air force program because they thought the requirements were unrealistic for the price desired, leading to a decision to drop out and avoid a bad contract?

Meanwhile we've got Lockheed, who's strategy is to over-promise leading to massive cost and time overruns hoping to win in the end based on sunk costs, and Boeing MD who's greed for short term profits has turned a great company into a basket case.

Given how well the B-21 program has gone and how poorly Lockheed and Boeing have done I was looking forward to seeing what NG could do with the program. Now I wonder if the program will ever show something, or if it does whether it will be in service before 2040 at double or triple the price.
 
NG could have an edge for F/A-XX that may explain why they dropped out of USAF NGAD. Boeing is in a bad way especially on the commercial side, along with KC-46 and T-7 is having issues, F-15EX is somewhat a silver lining. The NG X-47B program was an excellent example of NG naval aviation prowess, plus B-21 is moving into LRIP already (due in part of the "RQ-180" and B-21 lineage). The YF-23/F-23 program even though was in the late 80's, early 90's and I have stated this before, was Gen 5.5+. This is probably the reason other nations 6th gen aircraft concepts including some LMCO concepts have F-23 traits.
 
We shall see how NG get's on with the F/A-XX program Hydroman, I am still recovering from NGs shock exit from the Air Force NGAD so we will have to wait and see who wins the F/A-XX program. All that I can say right now is that this coming year is going to be highly interesting.
 
https://valkstrat.com/the-cartman-gambit/

Some relevant thoughts on the industrial base in here from Bill Sweetman

Most companies exist to make money. If you have a guaranteed long term income stream already, then you don't need to take risk and expense in bidding for new business.

Boeing defense is in a must win position, but neither LM nor NG are.

I think that CCA winner(s) will be more interesting
 
The last "cat" named fighter was of course the mighty Tomcat and there have been too many years between the Tomcat's retirement and the F/A-XX program, so I would think that the US Navy would be thinking up good names for their next aircraft.
 
FighterJock said:
We shall see how NG get's on with the F/A-XX program Hydroman, I am still recovering from NGs shock exit from the Air Force NGAD so we will have to wait and see who wins the F/A-XX program. All that I can say right now is that this coming year is going to be highly interesting.
Click to expand...
FighterJock, you are correct, things are going to get very interesting this year. With the state of the world right now, NG and LM I'm sure have a lot going on. I know things are very busy for NG, I still keep in touch with a few old cohorts even after I left. NG could still be a subcontractor of whoever wins USAF NGAD, along the lines of F-35, maybe.
 
FighterJock said:
The last "cat" named fighter was of course the mighty Tomcat and there have been too many years between the Tomcat's retirement and the F/A-XX program, so I would think that the US Navy would be thinking up good names for their next aircraft.
Click to expand...
I also worked the Tomcat when I was on CVN-65, I miss that plane, the F-110 engines made it the fighter it should have been. See, Tomcat gone, CVN-65 gone, oh no!
 
No way the Air Force was going to select N-G for NGAD, as N-G already has the B-21 program going. As in early 90's, and the B-2/ATF situation. You don't want the same company to run all your major programs, for various reasons.

My bet would be for LM to get NGAD.

For F/A-XX, N-G is a strong contender, but Boeing has to have something if the company is to remain in the combat jets business. So maybe a N-G/Boeing partnership again (even if the last occurence wasn't particularly a smooth ride)...
 
All I'm saying is, when things like this pop up, it just makes you wonder...Just how many NGAD variants are out there actually flying.
 

Attachments

  • 1000005328.jpg
    1000005328.jpg
    460.8 KB · Views: 213
  • 20240211_151828.jpg
    20240211_151828.jpg
    548.1 KB · Views: 191
Last edited by a moderator:
specializedoptions1@gmail said:
All I'm saying is, when things like this pop up, it just makes you wonder...Just how many NGAD variants are out there actually flying.
Click to expand...
There aren't any NGAD variants flying. There was a DARPA program to flight test advanced fighter configurations, of which, reportedly, two or three flew (One from each of the contractors, which I would assume would be LM, NG, and Boeing.) Those were demonstrators for new fighter designs, but they weren't the NGAD as I doubt the NGAD mission profile was defined yet. The NGAD will definitely reference what was demonstrated.
 
Sundog said:
There aren't any NGAD variants flying. There was a DARPA program to flight test advanced fighter configurations, of which, reportedly, two or three flew (One from each of the contractors, which I would assume would be LM, NG, and Boeing.) Those were demonstrators for new fighter designs, but they weren't the NGAD as I doubt the NGAD mission profile was defined yet. The NGAD will definitely reference what was demonstrated.
Click to expand...
Better put, thank you for clarifying better than I could!
 
I would predict the following LM for NGAD, and NG for F/A-XX then Boeing for the CCA especially to keep Boeing in the military market. In other words it could end up being a three way split between the different companies.
 
Sundog said:
There aren't any NGAD variants flying. There was a DARPA program to flight test advanced fighter configurations, of which, reportedly, two or three flew (One from each of the contractors, which I would assume would be LM, NG, and Boeing.) Those were demonstrators for new fighter designs, but they weren't the NGAD as I doubt the NGAD mission profile was defined yet. The NGAD will definitely reference what was demonstrated.
Click to expand...

Any idea whether these are subscale demonstrators or not?
 
Interesting find raptor82, would having the CCA make the NGAD program cheaper than the ATF/JSF since the CCA is an unmanned aircraft? After all the F-22 and F-35 both cost a lot more money than was first thought of before their respective contract awards.
 
Their CCA payloads seem rather larger than I would have expected. Also interesting that the wargame envisioned air launched CCAs from B-52s.
 
Josh_TN said:
Their CCA payloads seem rather larger than I would have expected. Also interesting that the wargame envisioned air launched CCAs from B-52s.
Click to expand...
Maybe that good old episode of "Dogfights" called "Dogfights of the Future" had some relevance to it on bomber style air to air trucks.
 
FighterJock said:
I would predict the following LM for NGAD, and NG for F/A-XX then Boeing for the CCA especially to keep Boeing in the military market. In other words it could end up being a three way split between the different companies.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly expecting something like a "Century Series" of CCAs, relatively rapidly getting more and more capable like the F100-F111 series did.

And yes, probably some adjustments on the "disposable-attritable-non-attritable" axis. (Disposable is 1 mission, essentially a missile. Attritable is more than 1 mission, maybe 10-15 for expected life. Non-attritable is planning on a longer life yet, but I'm not sure how long an aircraft would really last over Taiwan or Crimea.)


raptor82 said:

Click to expand...
Holy crap, 3000nmi ranges for the non-attritable CCAs?!?


Josh_TN said:
Their CCA payloads seem rather larger than I would have expected. Also interesting that the wargame envisioned air launched CCAs from B-52s.
Click to expand...
Crud, I was more impressed by the ranges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom