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

Status
Not open for further replies.
???? What that mean ? there is one information behind what He say ? What is NGAD if not a F-22 replacement ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Josh_TN said:
Remember that sustainability costs are a big part of this. AI doesn’t need to train, at least not on every airframe. Just focusing on fly away costs does not bring the whole picture. If you do not have to fly to train, you skip a lot of maintenance as well.
Click to expand...

That is true, but the manned component whether it be F-22, F-35, F-15, or F-16 will need to train with CCAs. It's not like you are going to keep them in storage and break the glass in the event of war.
 
defensescoop.com

Air Force still expects to award NGAD contract in 2024 despite uncertainties — ACC commander

The Air Force still plans to award a contract for NGAD fighter aircraft in 2024, according to the head of Air Combat Command.
defensescoop.com defensescoop.com

“I want everybody to be clear that it’s a family of systems, and there’s a lot of things that are not in the public sphere that we’ve been working on for a while and we’ll continue to expand that,” he said. Interesting a lot of thing are behind the wall....
 
I am willing to think that a bit of this comes with the electoral agenda. Some might have read too much in Reagan´s team memories.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
As far as I know, tactical nukes were never regulated. Intermediate range missiles were, as a delivery system. Outside that delivery stipulation I do not they were regulated.

In any case, there’s no shortage of F-35s for that role.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was thinking about the intermediate range or 'theatre' weapons such as Tomahawk and Pershing that were based in the UK and Europe in the 80s.
 
In the best case they've suddenly lost all message discipline on this and everyone's just talking without thinking. Worst case the the program's being futzed with so much nobody inside or out is able to keep up in real time. Neither is reassuring.
 
Josh_TN said:
Remember that sustainability costs are a big part of this. AI doesn’t need to train, at least not on every airframe. Just focusing on fly away costs does not bring the whole picture. If you do not have to fly to train, you skip a lot of maintenance as well.
Click to expand...
The ground crews still need to train on the CCAs.

Even if you make them as "wooden rounds" with the AAMs pre-loaded and somehow rated to sit in storage for however long, that's only good for their first launch. Afterwards they need to be refueled, reloaded, and have any maintenance done before their next flight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DWG
Scott Kenny said:
The ground crews still need to train on the CCAs.

Even if you make them as "wooden rounds" with the AAMs pre-loaded and somehow rated to sit in storage for however long, that's only good for their first launch. Afterwards they need to be refueled, reloaded, and have any maintenance done before their next flight.
Click to expand...

It is still likely far less maintenance cost. Ground training and manned/unmanned training still has to happen, but the UAV does not need to ever train for basic proficiency. Lower hours on the aircraft should reduce costs. Obviously not having to train pilots is a big saving as well.
 
It is also probable that many CCA airframe could be resold as brand new, never having flown a single operational hour. That is an often relegated important parameter that should be kept in mind when dealing with forward planning at the pace the USAF wants to renew their UAS fleet to stay on-top of the game.
I would even say that this aspect should be part of gov requirement as early as the design phase since actionizing those sale would be dragged by government oversight and political debate on something as complicated (better plan early what and to who).
But if a resale could be made quickly, a significant influx of capital would benefit the effort to purchase new hardware.
 
Last edited:
Alternatively, older increments of CCA could simply be used as an expendable round.

Given that much of the CCA fleet would not require high airframe hours, I wonder if buying used high mileage engines from civilian sources might have some merit as a cost savings measure. It seems unlikely that a CCA is going to need the full engine life of say a Williams 44.
 
flateric said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Wilsbach: Air Force Should Keep, and Not Divest, Block 20 F-22s

The Air Force should keep the 32 F-22s it asked to retire, Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, head of Air Combat Command, said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
I full realize that with a limited budget you need to make choices. But keeping the Block 20s was a no brainer when the F-22s are among the youngest and most capable fighters in service, especially when you have so few F-22s in the inventory. I'm surprised that it took so long for someone to say this. The campaign to retire the Block 20s reminds me of the messiness this last month with NGAD. AF leadership said the Block 20s were next to useless for training because they didn't represent operational F-22s. Then they ended up admitting that Block 30s would need to be pulled from operational squadrons to backfill Block 20s in training squadrons. Now they are signaling they would like to keep the Block 20s.

For less than the price of an F-15EX you could upgrade the Block 20s to the current standard.
 
dark sidius said:
I think more and more than the NGAD is a supersonic command and control aircraft with the capacity of shooting long range AA missile, not maneuver or dog fighting like F-22 of today.
Click to expand...
The only thing that worries me is that it almost sounds like a repeat of Vietnam when the F-4's were fielded. When everyone's cards are all exhausted, I feel turn and burn will be the game again.
 
Wanted to get your guys' thoughts on this. I was reading back into the Northrop Grumman Fixed supersonic nozzle patent from the first picture. Now I know that NG isn't in the race anymore, however, I read further into the description, (included the patent link) and it describes a mission profile of Mach 2.2 supercruise at FL600 and a subsequent loitering at Mach 0.8 at FL360. Maybe this was a design requirement for NGAD (or parent program)?

Patent Link:

US9009966B2 - Internal/external single expansion ramp nozzle with integrated third stream - Google Patents

The construction of an internal/external single expansion ramp nozzle (nxSERN), and method of designing the same, is provided. Initial design parameters for primary stream construction are selected and additional parameters are determined by isentropic relations using the selected design...
patents.google.com
 

Attachments

  • US09009966-20150421-D00002.png
    US09009966-20150421-D00002.png
    20.4 KB · Views: 44
Among other things, how to make a thinner fixed geometry nozzle by putting another nozzle inside for the third stream cooling air? More generally a computational method better than guess and check...

Also:

"In the disclosed embodiment the initial criteria was selected based on notional mission profile containing a 60,000 feet, Mach 2.2 supercrusie segment and at 36,000 feet, Mach 0.08 loiter segment. However, the design process disclosed herein is applicable across the range of operating nozzle pressure ratios and flight conditions."
 
M2.2 supercruise at 60Kft, that would be a BVR monster. It is interesting that supercruise is still factoring into fighter design. There has been some speculation that SC was a fad and it was better to stay slower and hence cooler to better hide from IRST. This suggests that may not be the case.
 
www.flightglobal.com

USAF looks to create dilemmas for Chinese war planning

The US Air Force is focused on creating "dilemmas" to deter China, as it continues to work on new combat aircraft as well as upgrades to existing assets.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

It occurs to me that deliberately mixed and inconsistent messaging is one way of creating dilemmas for Chinese planning.
 
books said:
Among other things, how to make a thinner fixed geometry nozzle by putting another nozzle inside for the third stream cooling air? More generally a computational method better than guess and check...

Also:

"In the disclosed embodiment the initial criteria was selected based on notional mission profile containing a 60,000 feet, Mach 2.2 supercrusie segment and at 36,000 feet, Mach 0.08 loiter segment. However, the design process disclosed herein is applicable across the range of operating nozzle pressure ratios and flight conditions."
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is how they incorporate NGAP into how the engine works? It's hard to tell but that would be extremely complex to make a series of separate exhaust systems off of one engine per power unit. It fits the bill of three stage adaptive cycle engines but this just leaves my head spinning on how to make it all work the right way.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Perhaps this is how they incorporate NGAP into how the engine works? It's hard to tell but that would be extremely complex to make a series of separate exhaust systems off of one engine per power unit. It fits the bill of three stage adaptive cycle engines but this just leaves my head spinning on how to make it all work the right way.
Click to expand...

Hence "Sneden said aircraft primes Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman all received nearly billion-dollar NGAP contracts last year—as did GE and Pratt—to harmonize the engines’ performance with NGAD airframe"

from the 2023 article https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/next-gen-fighter-engines/ and other places. And also, probably, hence the review based on new funding obstacles & other reasons.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Wanted to get your guys' thoughts on this. I was reading back into the Northrop Grumman Fixed supersonic nozzle patent from the first picture. Now I know that NG isn't in the race anymore, however, I read further into the description, (included the patent link) and it describes a mission profile of Mach 2.2 supercruise at FL600 and a subsequent loitering at Mach 0.8 at FL360. Maybe this was a design requirement for NGAD (or parent program)?

Patent Link:

US9009966B2 - Internal/external single expansion ramp nozzle with integrated third stream - Google Patents

The construction of an internal/external single expansion ramp nozzle (nxSERN), and method of designing the same, is provided. Initial design parameters for primary stream construction are selected and additional parameters are determined by isentropic relations using the selected design...
patents.google.com
Click to expand...
That's an odd flight profile.

Blackbird and Valkyrie both prove that it's possible to optimize a design to cruise at high speed. Crud, the manual I have for the Boeing 2707 says that it has just the same range at Mach 2.7 as it does subsonic.

Granted, none of those planes could even politely be described as "aerobatic."
 
Scott Kenny said:
That's an odd flight profile.

Blackbird and Valkyrie both prove that it's possible to optimize a design to cruise at high speed. Crud, the manual I have for the Boeing 2707 says that it has just the same range at Mach 2.7 as it does subsonic.

Granted, none of those planes could even politely be described as "aerobatic."
Click to expand...
Not so odd if NGAD is a purported BVR beast command and control platform. But who knows! I'm ready to see this darn thing already. Better assumptions can be had once a real product is shown!
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Not so odd if NGAD is a purported BVR beast command and control platform. But who knows! I'm ready to see this darn thing already. Better assumptions can be had once a real product is shown!
Click to expand...
Why is it slowing down at all?
 
It would seem to suggest that some of the weapons it is intended to use have pretty constrained speed ranges for deployment.
 
Everyone feel free to laugh or roll your eyes but could a lot of this be some thinking “look at the F-15EX look at the new ultra long range AA missiles plus CCA/loyal wingman ConOps do we really [re: can we] spend $300 million on a 6G fighter?”
 
bobbymike said:
Everyone feel free to laugh or roll your eyes but could a lot of this be some thinking “look at the F-15EX look at the new ultra long range AA missiles plus CCA/loyal wingman ConOps do we really [re: can we] spend $300 million on a 6G fighter?”
Click to expand...
I'm sure some people are thinking that, but when do the F-22s run out of service life? I'm assuming 16k hours total airframe life, with a major overhaul at 8k.

If the planes are getting 350hrs/year,** that means the 8k check happens about 22 years, and the plane reaches 16k in about 45 years. F-22s were built between 1996 and 2011, so we might be able to expect they'd last till ~2050 (give or take 5 years) and the fleet should be about halfway through getting the major overhaul done (~2018-2033).

** - F15A/B/C/Ds flew about that many hours a year on average, and F22s have the same mission.
 
dark sidius said:
And Lockheed is doing Zero communication about the NGAD, no promo video nothing..
Click to expand...
Zero? Lolwhat. The problem with you that you are not tracking events or just not remember them.
 
dark sidius said:
Something is going on with Boeing, we knew a lot of month before in 2015 that it was Northrop the winner of B-21, well before the official contract in my opinion it is the same with Boeing. And Lockheed is doing Zero communication about the NGAD, no promo video nothing..
Click to expand...
Yes, certainly interesting. Considering too Boeing's recent well-publicised troubles, this is significant; one doesn't make such investments based on a chance and hope. We often talk about whether a specific machine is better than another but a service has to consider the ability of a contractor to produce that machine too. It's interesting to link this with the rumours that Boeing's proposal was more radical compared to Lockheed's more evolutionary concept, and that while Boeing is in deep do-do, Lockheed has not covered itself in glory with the F-35 either, and overall it may show where doctrine on future air combat is tilting.

If you think the controversy of the YF-22 versus the YF-23 was a mess, wait and see how this plays out.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom