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

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsport said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Air Force Wants $1.3 Billion to Finish Design for New Fighter Engine

The Air Force is asking Congress for $1.3 billion over three years to finish designing an engine for the NGAD fighter.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

any plane costing in to the "hundreds of millions" should be capable of transitioning in and out space at least for short periods.

it should be near impervious via an all-axis DEW defensive suite.

it should have a sufficient payload bay for a significant amount of H-K UAS/munitions. Such UAS/munitions should possess multiple shot capability and even be recoverable on the non/permissive battlespace/ground if not all shots are taken.
Click to expand...
Any one of those capabilities costs about $200mil.

edit: per aircraft. Not counting development costs.
 
Last edited:
Didn't someone claim there will be "plasma stealth" for their re-entry vehicle? :cool:
Even radar stealth can be solved, the heat signature is something you can't hide
 
MihoshiK said:
I take it you want a unicorn for your birthday, and not a pony.
Click to expand...
ok 'near space';) whatever drastic enhances range

Sänger-Bredt "Silverbird"​

 
jsport said:
it should have a sufficient payload bay for a significant amount of H-K UAS/munitions. Such UAS/munitions should possess multiple shot capability and even be recoverable on the non/permissive battlespace/ground if not all shots are taken.
Click to expand...
This greatly troubles me.
H-K requires advance divert/guidance/propulsion schemes not permissible on anything expendable. Factor in recoverability (said UAS should be able to survive a direct hit with a supersonic missile and survive reentry, or store a parachute system). And why even multishot? The propellant required for re-engaging other threats, potentially hypersonic and separated by miles, on an already volumetrically limited system would be astounding. Maybe a limited NERVA-esqe system would be needed. So your notional UAS here would be exorbitantly expensive, and multiply that by whatever "significant" means here.

I mean, no one put taxes on dreams but reality is reality.

jsport said:
ok 'near space';) whatever drastic enhances range
Click to expand...
Resurrect Dyna-Soar but as a HOTOL system!
 
asVAL said:
This greatly troubles me.
H-K requires advance divert/guidance/propulsion schemes not permissible on anything expendable.
Click to expand...
disagree
asVAL said:
Factor in recoverability (said UAS should be able to survive a direct hit with a supersonic missile and survive reentry, or store a parachute system).
Click to expand...
Mother protected via all axis RF guided DEW primarily for missiles @ very close range.
asVAL said:
And why even multishot? The propellant required for re-engaging other threats, potentially hypersonic and separated by miles, on an already volumetrically limited system would be astounding.
Click to expand...
Daughters multi-shot capability would be an Auto Grenade Launcher able to engage all tgts from other threat msles to Hardened Aircraft shelter doors to tank plinking w/ the same HV mini-missiles w/new energetics HEDP warheads... again all @ very close range.
asVAL said:
Maybe a limited NERVA-esqe system would be needed. So your notional UAS here would be exorbitantly expensive, and multiply that by whatever "significant" means here.
Click to expand...
SEAD would be accomplished via other means. UAS/munition would only act as back up SEAD.

CCAs provide SEAD, air superiority etc. as well as carrying daughters themselves.

CCA emphasis seems to be primarily on lower cost attritables, well what if the low cost attritable CCA carried even lower cost attritiable daughters. Even the more expensive boutique CCAs need their own low cost standoff which can be recovered but not necessarily.
 
jsport said:
Mother protected via all axis RF guided DEW primarily for missiles @ very close range.
Click to expand...
We've had laser dazzlers for missile defenses for a while now, either blind the IR seeker or feed false data to the prox fuze.

I'm still not convinced that you can make a laser with enough power to shoot down an AAM that will fit in a plane.



jsport said:
Daughters multi-shot capability would be an Auto Grenade Launcher able to engage all tgts from other threat msles to Hardened Aircraft shelter doors to tank plinking w/ the same HV mini-missiles w/new energetics HEDP warheads... again all @ very close range.
Click to expand...
No grenade launcher is going to have enough power to deal with a HAS. Not even going through the doors.
 
Scott Kenny said:
We've had laser dazzlers for missile defenses for a while now, either blind the IR seeker or feed false data to the prox fuze.

I'm still not convinced that you can make a laser with enough power to shoot down an AAM that will fit in a plane.




No grenade launcher is going to have enough power to deal with a HAS. Not even going through the doors.
Click to expand...
The agl fires a HV mini missiles in limited numbers and the missiles r guided to same impact point affording time for best in serial shaped charge effects.
 
Moose said:
The down-select will happen this summer, per current plan.
Click to expand...
My money's on Lockheed Martin, given their track record with the F-22 and F-35, not to mention all the whistleblowing (And deaths of said whistleblowers) going on at Boeing
 
Purpletrouble said:
Why is the human the weak point?

These trials are very tightly controlled and scripted, as yet no computer has come close to sustaining even “sense and avoid” GA flying due to the complexity and unpreditctability of the air environment. The “is it an enemy, what course of action to do?” is something so difficult we cant even specify a trial - all AI stuff starts with (human decided) assumptions that drastically simplify the situation for the computer to then process.

Endurance for these aircraft is engine oil limited, not the pilot. The offload of “routine flying” to computers with the human as a mission controller makes that even more pronounced as the human can take “time out” in a way they cant at the moment.
Click to expand...
 
jsport said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Air Force Wants $1.3 Billion to Finish Design for New Fighter Engine

The Air Force is asking Congress for $1.3 billion over three years to finish designing an engine for the NGAD fighter.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

any plane costing in to the "hundreds of millions" should be capable of transitioning in and out space at least for short periods.

it should be near impervious via an all-axis DEW defensive suite.

it should have a sufficient payload bay for a significant amount of H-K UAS/munitions. Such UAS/munitions should possess multiple shot capability and even be recoverable on the non/permissive battlespace/ground if not all shots are taken.
Click to expand...
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
My money's on Lockheed Martin, given their track record with the F-22 and F-35, not to mention all the whistleblowing (And deaths of said whistleblowers) going on at Boeing
Click to expand...
LockMart is up to their eyeballs in F35 production, NG is equally busy building B21s (though I think they dropped out of the USAF comp), and Boeing Military is more or less on idle with 90something F15EXs to make.

So BMAC has a huge political/industrial base advantage going in to this contest.


jsport said:
Click to expand...
You mean this ~6-8ft long rocket?

How many of those do you think your deployable weapon will carry?
 

Attachments

  • 20190524_Spike_rocket_AH-1_Cobra.jpg
    20190524_Spike_rocket_AH-1_Cobra.jpg
    73.6 KB · Views: 63
Scott Kenny said:
LockMart is up to their eyeballs in F35 production, NG is equally busy building B21s (though I think they dropped out of the USAF comp), and Boeing Military is more or less on idle with 90something F15EXs to make.

So BMAC has a huge political/industrial base advantage going in to this contest.



You mean this ~6-8ft long rocket?

How many of those do you think your deployable weapon will carry?
Click to expand...
There is rumor about Boeing is the design that USAF prefer over Lockheed but , we don't know nothing about NGAD difficult to make an idea about it..
 
Scott Kenny said:
LockMart is up to their eyeballs in F35 production, NG is equally busy building B21s (though I think they dropped out of the USAF comp), and Boeing Military is more or less on idle with 90something F15EXs to make.

So BMAC has a huge political/industrial base advantage going in to this contest.



You mean this ~6-8ft long rocket?

How many of those do you think your deployable weapon will carry?
Click to expand...
Clearly what the MICOM person is holding is the size of human arm. Propulsion is not for a range AT missile. As mentioned numerous times over the years, on this forum, there is a revolution is energetics underway therefore the size can be reduced significantly.
1716380322125.png
 
Last edited:
So the USAF prefers Boeing to Lockheed, need to wait and see what happens when the NGAD contract gets awarded to have a good look at the designs.
 
FighterJock said:
So the USAF prefers Boeing to Lockheed, need to wait and see what happens when the NGAD contract gets awarded to have a good look at the designs.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source that I could find this on?
 
Scott Kenny said:
LockMart is up to their eyeballs in F35 production, NG is equally busy building B21s (though I think they dropped out of the USAF comp), and Boeing Military is more or less on idle with 90something F15EXs to make.

So BMAC has a huge political/industrial base advantage going in to this contest.
Click to expand...
I still think NG pulling out is a bad sign, like deliberate non-compliance on the A-12 was. A sign that the performance and cost requirements don't match up. Of course they may have also seen that what they had wasn't going to win, so they might as well cut their losses.

I really can't see Lockheed getting it given their F-35 production issues. Of course I could say the same for Boeing, which is another reason why I think NG dropping out is a bad thing.
 
I wonder if MQ-28 is giving Boeing a head start?

Maybe NG dropped out to focus on the Navy plane? Or they are trying to resurrect FB-23?
 
Show of hands if you have any confidence in Boeing actually being able to execute on a "more ambitious 'fresher' approach"?
 
James1978 said:
Show of hands if you have any confidence in Boeing actually being able to execute on a "more ambitious 'fresher' approach"?
Click to expand...
Boeing Military has been doing interesting things with the F15s and Super Hornets, so I think they can execute.
 
jsport said:
Clearly what the MICOM person is holding is the size of human arm. Propulsion is not for a range AT missile. As mentioned numerous times over the years, on this forum, there is a revolution is energetics underway therefore the size can be reduced significantly.
View attachment 729692
Click to expand...
Okay, so your super-rocket is still 2-3ft long (using whatever propellant mix is in the Cuda/HalfRAAM.)

How many of those is your not-more-than-14ft-long recoverable loitering munition going to carry?
 
apparition13 said:
I still think NG pulling out is a bad sign, like deliberate non-compliance on the A-12 was. A sign that the performance and cost requirements don't match up. Of course they may have also seen that what they had wasn't going to win, so they might as well cut their losses.
Click to expand...
No, I think it is a case of too many people working on B21 and not enough available for NGAD. So they're going to get B21 flying and then concentrate the engineers on FAXX.
 
apparition13 said:
I still think NG pulling out is a bad sign, like deliberate non-compliance on the A-12 was. A sign that the performance and cost requirements don't match up. Of course they may have also seen that what they had wasn't going to win, so they might as well cut their losses.

I really can't see Lockheed getting it given their F-35 production issues. Of course I could say the same for Boeing, which is another reason why I think NG dropping out is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
I think they replicating the f-35 approach. As shoed in partner to whoever won, they became a big part of the program, significantly involved in signatures management, sensors work as well as building a big section of each aircraft.

With their head start in the b-21 development, any winning team of the NGAD will ask northrop to join. This would secure them work for both future fighter program and bomber program on top of continual f-35 work. With this move, they are but assured to be heavily involved in all of USAF major aircraft development/production in the forseeable future.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Okay, so your super-rocket is still 2-3ft long (using whatever propellant mix is in the Cuda/HalfRAAM.)

How many of those is your not-more-than-14ft-long recoverable loitering munition going to carry?
Click to expand...
Scott Kenny said:
Okay, so your super-rocket is still 2-3ft long (using whatever propellant mix is in the Cuda/HalfRAAM.)

How many of those is your not-more-than-14ft-long recoverable loitering munition going to carry?
Click to expand...
TBD, material science and intent will define. How is a final NGAD bay finally defined. "A" model may not be "B" model. Un (CCA)/manned (NGAD) craft require standoff KE solutions like an unmanned daughter for mother to survive & return to the hunt. Close in Defenses & even APS must be overcome.
 
jsport said:
TBD, material science and intent will define. How is a final NGAD bay finally defined. "A" model may not be "B" model. Un (CCA)/manned (NGAD) craft require standoff KE solutions like an unmanned daughter for mother to survive & return to the hunt. Close in Defenses & even APS must be overcome.
Click to expand...
So you're just waving your hands again.

Noted.
 
No, simply other answer makes sense..glad much of NGAD design will remain classified as many dont know what they are talking about.

Noted
 
Can any of you provide a higher resolution of this image?
 

Attachments

  • LM F-X.jpg
    LM F-X.jpg
    261.2 KB · Views: 364
What will be the main differences between the variable cycle engines and the current engines that power the fourth and fifth generation fighters?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom