US Navy 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

Uuuuiiiuu said:
Right, but what is preventing you from watermarking them or uploading them to a platform of your own? Claiming to have images of classified demonstrator aircraft seems outrageous.

And on a side note, Im still curious as to how you managed to obtain these documents and images, if not through a FOIA.
Click to expand...

Then I suppose I am an outrageous guy. Woohoo!

Long story short, I asked the right person/office nicely. I was aware they had them.
At least for the purposes of the occasion when the photos were taken they were not "classified" as they were deliberately shown to uncleared persons and those persons had the permission of the base commander to take photos.
 
quellish said:
And I don't appreciate when I do post things of that nature which are then used without attribution or compensation by commercial interests. Fuckfaces like "The War Zone" and "Sandboxx". Those two regularly take content from SPF and, effectively, sell it as their own work.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you have not slammed them with DMCA takedowns.
 
quellish said:
The Air Force made demonstrating cooling capacity and power generation as very important goals for AII-X in 2014/2015. The Navy did not.
Click to expand...
This is kind of interesting. Its unsurprising that the F-47 needs that since its an air superiority fighter first and foremost.

It is kind of surprising that it wasn't a major requirement by the navy. Wonder what the navy's requirements involved.

Edit since someone already mistaken this post for something its not -

im asking why a strike fighter wouldn't need high power gen and cooling. Strike fighters and particularly a multirole strike fighter also have advanced sensors that require power generation and cooling, so it makes me wonder why that wasn't a central part of the requirements.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I don't understand why you have not slammed them with DMCA takedowns.
Click to expand...
You have no copywrite claims to any documents or images you have obtained from the US government, so if you post something you've obtained from a FOIA request, unforunately there is no legal obligation for anyone to credit you or seek a license from you. Now, reputable journalists will credit you, as an ethics thing, but there's no legal requirement.

Someone like Rodrigo Avella (and similar artists) could certainly sue for copyright infringment, provided he takes the correct steps when publishing his work, as the things he is publishing are original 3D renders of his own design.
 
Reddington777 said:
This is kind of interesting. Its unsurprising that the F-47 needs that since its an air superiority fighter first and foremost.

It is kind of surprising that it wasn't a major requirement by the navy. Wonder what the navy's requirements involved.
Click to expand...

As has been posted on most every page, the primary requirement for the USN was strike.

We should change the topic title to FA-XX Strike fighter so we stop repeating this madness.
 
Josh_TN said:
As has been posted on most every page, the primary requirement for the USN was strike.

We should change the topic title to FA-XX Strike fighter so we stop repeating this madness.
Click to expand...
What. Madness?

I know it is a strike fighter. I never said it wasn't a strike fighter. Never in this entire thread did I suggest it was anything else. Im asking why a strike fighter wouldn't need extra power generation maybe because I actually dont know why. Strike fighters have radars that need cooling and power generation too.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I don't understand why you have not slammed them with DMCA takedowns.
Click to expand...

It probably involves too much effort. It is probably hard to prove, in a court of law. And it is just easier to be cryptic and know more.

I think he can be annoying, but he knows a lot and puts a lot effort into finding things out and I think everyone grabs his stuff and uses it when he gives more.

I will just give the benefit of the doubt.
 
Josh_TN said:
It probably involves too much effort. It is probably hard to prove, in a court of law. And it is just easier to be cryptic and know more.

I think he can be annoying, but he knows a lot and puts a lot effort into finding things out and I think everyone grabs his stuff and uses it when he gives more.

I will just give the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

They have not directly used something verbatim (in public) that I am aware of. If they took something word for word or used something I have a copyright on like an image that would be different. I am aware that internally they do discuss how to best use stolen content without involving their lawyers. I am also aware they have actually been in trouble for using copyrighted material before.

I will say that when I do put up “black dawn 3.0” it will be priced absurdly high because of this. It will be a subscription and it will be the the price of a new computer a month. There’s no way around that given how these sites have been “repurposing” copyrighted content for profit. That’s a discussion for some other thread though.
 
Reddington777 said:
Im asking why a strike fighter wouldn't need extra power generation maybe because I actually dont know why. Strike fighters have radars that need cooling and power generation too.
Click to expand...
The US Navy has a history of going with the low risk option with mature technology. This is demonstrated by the Super Hornet and the small commitment to the F-35C while keeping Super Hornet production going as a backup plan. The US Navy avoiding adaptive engine is another example where they want the maturity of an existing engine.

Cost is also a huge factor. The USAF has previously mentioned a NGAD flyaway price of $300 million. The US Navy can't afford to fill their carriers with $300 million fighters. The Navy design has to be built with affordability in mind. I assume the largest cooling and power generation requirements would be for directed energy weapons. The US Navy would put such technology in the same basket as the adaptive engines. These bells and whistles can be added in the distant future.

The Navy simply needs something with more range, more speed and more stealth than the F-35C. The hard part is making it affordable enough for the Navy to buy 500+ aircraft.
 
Reddington777 said:
This is kind of interesting. Its unsurprising that the F-47 needs that since its an air superiority fighter first and foremost.

It is kind of surprising that it wasn't a major requirement by the navy. Wonder what the navy's requirements involved.

Edit since someone already mistaken this post for something its not -

im asking why a strike fighter wouldn't need high power gen and cooling. Strike fighters and particularly a multirole strike fighter also have advanced sensors that require power generation and cooling, so it makes me wonder why that wasn't a central part of the requirements.
Click to expand...
Throwing out an unicorn here, maybe the plane is built from frozen pykrete so the structure cools itself :D
 
insidersource said:
The US Navy has a history of going with the low risk option with mature technology.
Click to expand...
Wut? The F-4H held the records for maximum speed, sustained altitude, maximum speed on the deck, and all the climb records when it entered service. And, for it's day, it had a hell of a radar and 8 AAMs.

unnamed.jpg

The F-14 was hardly a low-risk option either. Swing-wing, (including additional glove vanes), an engine so cutting-edge they had to replace it with the "interim" TF30, and a weapons system the likes of which had never been seen before.

Tomcat-break-away.jpg

Tomcat-missiles-960_640.jpg

Then the Tomcat was going to be replaced by no less than a navalized F-22 that was cancelled because of the "Peace Dividend" i.e. the .govs short-sighted gutting of the military.

564490_6_.png
 
NATF should never have been cancled in my view and the US Navy should have had the F-14 Replacement that it always wanted. Typical of the Governments of the day canceling good fighters for no reason.
 
It is easy in retrospect to say defense cuts were short sighted, but the PRC was not remotely a threat until a decade or two ago. In the 90s no one would have believed the threat China became; it is perhaps the biggest arms build up in history outside the U.S. in the early 40s.
 
quellish said:
What, what I do, or do not post is at my own discretion.

And I don't appreciate when I do post things of that nature which are then used without attribution or compensation by commercial interests. Fuckfaces like "The War Zone" and "Sandboxx". Those two regularly take content from SPF and, effectively, sell it as their own work.
Click to expand...
Amen to that brother.
 
Josh_TN said:
It is easy in retrospect to say defense cuts were short sighted, but the PRC was not remotely a threat until a decade or two ago. In the 90s no one would have believed the threat China became; it is perhaps the biggest arms build up in history outside the U.S. in the early 40s.
Click to expand...

There are people being paid handsomely to analyze and foresee potential threats with several years of leeway.

While I'm not necessarily suggesting that NATF shouldn't have been canceled (although I'm very fond of the NATF-23 (the superior design)), but F/A-XX should have gotten off the ground earlier and should proceed quicker with more certainty than it currently does. This is just giving the PLANAF lead for literally no reason. But the US of this day isn't the US of the 70s and 80s.
 
joshjosh said:
You have no copywrite claims to any documents or images you have obtained from the US government, so if you post something you've obtained from a FOIA request, unforunately there is no legal obligation for anyone to credit you or seek a license from you. Now, reputable journalists will credit you, as an ethics thing, but there's no legal requirement.

Someone like Rodrigo Avella (and similar artists) could certainly sue for copyright infringment, provided he takes the correct steps when publishing his work, as the things he is publishing are original 3D renders of his own design.
Click to expand...
Can one redraw an image based off of a document/image obtained from the US government then copyright that drawn picture?
 
quellish said:
Could have been "exclusive to this forum" (until stolen) and posted months ago if there hadn't been so many crap political, etc. posts in the relevant threads.

Hypothetically, demonstrators were shown in unclassified conditions to uncleared persons, intentionally, and photos were allowed to be taken.

DoD is weird.
Click to expand...
I find it harder by the week to keep Up l with some threads because of posts that often spiral way of the topic. Of course sometimes im myself at fault to.
 
quellish said:
(b)(1):

Exemption 1 - FOIA.Wiki

foia.wiki foia.wiki

(b)(3):

Exemption 3 - FOIA.Wiki

foia.wiki foia.wiki



Could have been "exclusive to this forum" (until stolen) and posted months ago if there hadn't been so many crap political, etc. posts in the relevant threads.

Hypothetically, demonstrators were shown in unclassified conditions to uncleared persons, intentionally, and photos were allowed to be taken.

DoD is weird.
Click to expand...
Would you be willing to do a private message and share them? Keeps the group smaller and accountable?
 
FighterJock said:
NATF should never have been cancled in my view and the US Navy should have had the F-14 Replacement that it always wanted.
Click to expand...

You can blame that cancellation on that arsehole SecDef Cheney for that decision.

EmoBirb said:
but F/A-XX should have gotten off the ground earlier and should proceed quicker with more certainty than it currently does.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention I think that the F/A-XX competition could've been initiated a few years earlier by the USN.
 
FighterJock said:
NATF should never have been cancled in my view
Click to expand...
The air-to-air NATF was meant to be paired with a subsonic air-to-ground ATA. Not enough funds for two cleansheet designs. I think the multi-role A/F-X specifications that appeared in 1992 was much more suitable. A/F-X would have resulted in a twin engine stealth aircraft similar to the F-35C. Or a much slower F-22.

The US Navy purchased the Super Hornet as an interim solution while the A/F-X was being developed. The Super Hornet consumed most of the ever shrinking budget and the A/F-X had to also be cancelled. In hindsight the US Navy should have kept purchasing F/A-18C and dumped everything into A/F-X. Today's the US carriers would be 100% stealth. I'm sure the A/F-X design would have been faster than Super Hornet.

The NATF had too many barriers. The early generation stealth coatings were not durable for the carrier environment. The F-22 supercruise capable fixed wing could never hit the slower landing speeds for carrier landings. Variable geometry wings would reduce stealth and significantly increased complexity and cost over the already expensive F-22. A fixed wing capable of the slower landing speeds probably wouldn't be able to supercruise making the supercruise optimised F119 engine a poor match.

30 years of technology improvements later the US Navy can now get a supercruise capable design with a cheaper fixed wing that can fly slow enough to land on a carrier. The durable stealth now exist to keep the costs down.
 
insidersource said:
The air-to-air NATF was meant to be paired with a subsonic air-to-ground ATA. Not enough funds for two cleansheet designs. I think the multi-role A/F-X specifications that appeared in 1992 was much more suitable. A/F-X would have resulted in a twin engine stealth aircraft similar to the F-35C. Or a much slower F-22.
Click to expand...

The fact that there already have been three naval stealth programs (two of which were strike aircraft) that went nowhere isn't instilling confidence looking at the current trajectory of the F/A-XX, tbh.
 
"As Breaking Defense reports, the Navy has prepared an "Unfunded Priorities List" (a sort of martial Christmas wish list) for fiscal 2026. And on this list, the Navy suggests (hopefully) that, should Congress happen to find a spare $1.4 billion lying around, it would take it most kindly if that money could go to the Navy to continue development of the F/A-XX."

 
NOC stock yesterday opened at $515, closed at $562.96
www.google.com

Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC) Stock Price & News - Google Finance

Get the latest Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC) real-time quote, historical performance, charts, and other financial information to help you make more informed trading and investment decisions.
www.google.com www.google.com

Although it does not seem to be related to AS sector.
 
insidersource said:
The USAF only recently selected the smaller F/A-XX design. Up until recently the Navy would have assumed they would been alone with an engine in that size range. The USAF has always been funding an adaptive engine for itself. The Navy has always assumed it could never fit the USAF adaptive engine but now it suddenly can.
Click to expand...

You have an interesting theory. But I don't think the AF changed the direction and adopted the F/A-XX design after the pause. Kendall talked about a much less expensive design and even looking at the engine to reducing cost. But this seems to have gone nowhere like other instances of Kendall pontificating on Air Force technology. There was ample evidence that the AF favored Boeing's design for quite some time.

Steve Trimble had a scoop a few days ago about a classified Navy long range strike aircraft program.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1947687591723090018
View: https://x.com/AviationWeek/status/1947687591723090018


I don't have access beyond the paywall. I don't think it's some type of error providing funding for F/A-XX. Unmanned? If there is only $300 million for the program it doesn't seem to indicate that it is at a mature stage. You would have think that OSD would have used the existence of another program to justify the F/A-XX cut. The Carter administration tried to use the ATB program and cruise missiles to justify the cancellation of the B-1.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom