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

Reddington777 said:
My basic assumption right now is a super hornet's typical A2G loads as the bare minimum. That already constraints which wingsweeps and forebody sweeps are available from that chart.
Click to expand...
I don't think "as the bare minimum" is quite right.



Reddington777 said:
8x 2000lb bombs... damn thats a lot. Didn't know the A12 could carry that much.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that's a typo. Everything I've been able to find for A-12 ATA has been 4x 2000lb or 10x 1000lb.



Reddington777 said:
I'm not super sure on the internal carry LRASMs so I want to avoid that for now, but I think JSMs, SiAWs/AARGM-ERs would be the kind of weapons I think are reasonably internally carried (and useful for a fight most likely fought at range). I think 6 SiAWs plus 4 AAMs is where I'm going to start with. That could/should still lead to enough space to carry 2 LRASMs internally in addition to AAMs if I end up going that route...
Click to expand...
Remember how big JSMs and SiAWs are. The difference is bay length, not width. JSMs are 19"x20"x13'1", AGM-88Gs are ~22" wide by 13'4" long, and AGM-158s are 18"x22"x14'1".
 
My take using my work on the F47 for better illustration:
FA-XX-store-station-payload-load-factor-v1.png
I realized it's basically GCAP, though, GCAP probably should be a bit more due to their "parasitic" goal of fitting all kinds of weapons.
So basically the 2 main bays have space for 4x 2000 lb bombs and the 2 side bays have space for 4 missiles. I used stacking to squeeze more missiles into the main bays for A2A. I don't think more is reasonable for a carrier based stealth fighter. It's not impossible but would be too large and heavy.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Should be a posting moratorium in this thread until members can show proof of having read and comprehended “Regaining the High Ground at Sea” by Clark et al 2018.
Click to expand...
I don't know that I agree with their assessment of ~18x strike/etc UCAVs, 6x EW UCAVs (same airframe as strike UCAVs), 10x F-35Cs, 10x FAXX, 6x E2Ds, 12x ISR CCAs, and 12x helos.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I don't know that I agree with their assessment of ~18x strike/etc UCAVs, 6x EW UCAVs (same airframe as strike UCAVs), 10x F-35Cs, 10x FAXX, 6x E2Ds, 12x ISR CCAs, and 12x helos.
Click to expand...
The High Ground UCAVs are going to be very high end things, VLO or ELO and likely the size of the old NG ATA proposal if not a bit bigger (to make the bays wide enough to hold 4x AGM-158s et sim, call the bay size 185" long by ~50" wide by ~25" deep, times 2 bays).

The report says the UCAVs are going to be capable of "Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD), ISR&T, strike, SUW, ASW, and EMW missions."

I've already crunched out that 4x AMRAAM-C sized missiles will fit into the volume occupied by a single AGM-158, so it'd be possible to pack 8-16x AIM-120/AIM-260 sized missiles into one of those UCAVs. That would make some impressive IAMD BARCAP magazine depth. This is also one of the cheapest options in terms of what is needed out of the airframe, as all it needs is a datalink to the E2 and FAXX to tell the missiles where to go. No air-search radar required necessarily.

ISR&T means good sensors and a datalink back to the ship. Possibly the full sensor breadth from the digital TARPS the F-14s used to carry, plus some surface-search radar functionality (which would be shared with the Strike and SUW missions). Which is kinda expensive, and requires sensors designed into the airframe, or at least sensor apertures designed into the airframe with the sensors proper designed like pods with standardized box sizes to mount into the airframe. Any UCAV assigned the ISR&T mission will likely get weapons bay fuel tanks to extend time on station.

Strike and SUW are pretty similar, lugging heavy booms to target. Strike probably includes some fancy radar ground mapping options, SUW will need a different set of radar tools for IDing ships on the ocean. The extra fancy radar bits will cost, but won't be terrible. One of the arguable flaws with the old ATA/A-12 proposals was that every different weapons load required a different setup in the weapons bays, this may be addressable with some creativity. Though a max load of SDBs will still require a special rack, it may be possible to use parts of that rack to also carry 500lb bombs.

ASW is not going to be easy to design into the airframe. You need to be pretty close to the water to drop sonobuoys, and those will require at least custom racks inside the bomb bays if not custom doors which would compromise stealth. A separate fixed-wing ASW UCAV may be a better choice than trying to cram sonobuoys and a dedicated periscope-search radar into the airframe, plus low-altitude performance.

I think the EMW/AEA will be dedicated airframes to carry the same jammers as the EA-18 Growlers. The report certainly implies so.

=====
Then there's the tanker drones, which usually appear to be mostly MQ-25s with a couple of the UCAVs fitted with a hose reel in one bomb bay and a fuel tank in the other bay.

=====
F-35Cs seem to have a slightly smaller spot factor than Super Bugs, 1.38ish versus 1.46 (Legacy Bug = 1). I have been guesstimating the FAXX spot factor at 1.55, and I am seeing estimates for MQ25 spot factors down about 1.1 (should be expected for tube-and-wing shapes).

Where I am struggling is the UCAV spot factors. I'm seeing 1.44 for the NG ATA proposal, and 1.36 for for the MDD A-12, but I'm not seeing which aircraft is the 1.0. I'm also confused how the NG ATA has a higher spot factor than the MDD, given that the NG design folded into hexagons which tend to pack better than a 5 sided "home plate" design.
 
Here is my F/A-XX

faxx2.jpg

faxx lower.jpg

Two tandem central weapon bays that are 24" wide, 24" deep and 180" long. Total bay length is then 360".

One bay has the following load out like the Boeing weapon pod.

WEAPON BAY.jpg

Air-to-air loadout (shown in the image)
8x AMRAAMs in the two tandem main bays
2x missiles in the side bays.

Self escort strike
6x small diameter bombs in one central bay.
1x AGM-88G in the second central bay.
4x AMRAAMs on the bay doors.
2x missiles in the side bays.

Stand off strike or anti ship.
2x JASSM or LRASM
2x missiles in the side bays.

With the AGM-88G and SiAW the rear fins can be placed aft the AMRAAM fins. The side strakes will be higher up and will clear the AMRAAM fins mounted to the door.

This is approximately double the weapon capacity of the F-35C.

The F-35C can carry 8x SDB and 2x AIM-120. My design carries 50% more bombs and 200% more missiles.
 
Reddington777 said:
You could at lest credit Rodrigo and I...
Click to expand...
Both of your names are in the image in the bottom right corner. Rodrigo took your model and rendered it. I took Rodrigos render and spent over an hour in photoshop with dozens of layers manually painting the images to make them unique.
 
insidersource said:
Both of your names are in the image in the bottom right corner. Rodrigo took your model and rendered it. I took Rodrigos render and spent over an hour in photoshop with dozens of layers manually painting the images to make them unique.
Click to expand...
Mess with it how you wish, but know (for posterity) that the model posted was my F-47 model - and not in the least to represent something related to F/A-XX - especially not a convert one way or another.

As I said before in the art thread - by widening and extending my weapon bays, you've neglected two things - the intake area is already a little uncomfortably small for ACE engines - and by expanding the weapons bay in that area, you've made it even smaller. The render you used also has an underlying model where the engine - due to it's wide space - has only 4 inches from casing to outer mold line at the widest diameter of the engine, which is much too tight compared to the F-23 or F-22. Since sending it to Rodrigo for rendering, the model has lost it's weapons bay between the engine precisely for the reason that it does not leave enough for the structural ringed bulkheads holding the engine in place.

As I've said before and I'll say again - it's not a matter of "it looks like it'll fit". Things that look like they fit in 2d (and even 3d) flat out don't fit when you consider their use case and the accessory items that afford the use case.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
As I said before in the art thread - by widening and extending my weapon bays, you've neglected two things - the intake area is already a little uncomfortably small for ACE engines
Click to expand...
This is F/A-XX. The US Navy said they wanted to use a derivative of an existing engine. This model is using F110 engines rated to 32,500lb of thrust. The intakes are now comfortably sized for that airflow.

Reddington777 said:
- and by expanding the weapons bay in that area, you've made it even smaller. The render you used also has an underlying model where the engine - due to it's wide space - has only 4 inches from casing to outer mold line at the widest diameter of the engine, which is much too tight compared to the F-23 or F-22.
Click to expand...
You assumed a 51" diameter engine in your F-47 model. That is wider than the F135 (46")and also the three stream adaptive XA100 and XA101 engines (48").

I'm assuming a F110 sized engine so there is plenty of space now for the wider tandem bay. The F110 F-16 variant is only 40" wide and 46" tall.

It is worth noting that a lot of the engine diameters listed are the height that include the accessories. The width is much less and in most cases it's only 5-6inch wider than the fan diameter. This means your model is very conservative when it comes to engine bay size.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
Mess with it how you wish, but know (for posterity) that the model posted was my F-47 model - and not in the least to represent something related to F/A-XX - especially not a convert one way or another.

As I said before in the art thread - by widening and extending my weapon bays, you've neglected two things - the intake area is already a little uncomfortably small for ACE engines - and by expanding the weapons bay in that area, you've made it even smaller. The render you used also has an underlying model where the engine - due to it's wide space - has only 4 inches from casing to outer mold line at the widest diameter of the engine, which is much too tight compared to the F-23 or F-22. Since sending it to Rodrigo for rendering, the model has lost it's weapons bay between the engine precisely for the reason that it does not leave enough for the structural ringed bulkheads holding the engine in place.

As I've said before and I'll say again - it's not a matter of "it looks like it'll fit". Things that look like they fit in 2d (and even 3d) flat out don't fit when you consider their use case and the accessory items that afford the use case.
Click to expand...
Yes it is.
 
Training_Dummy said:
“Regaining the High Ground at Sea” by Clark et al 2018.
Click to expand...
The report is somewhat outdated and doesn't really change how things are or had been calculated. But the new concepts are being made clear here. Their assumptions are what's "interesting" as in what vakues they used in the calculation.
The assumption had always been a saturation attack on both sides in a peer power competition since pretty much ancient times.
In this case 200 shots minimum per wave.
Scott Kenny said:
The High Ground UCAVs are going to be very high end things, VLO or ELO and likely the size of the old NG ATA proposal if not a bit bigger (to make the bays wide enough to hold 4x AGM-158s et sim, call the bay size 185" long by ~50" wide by ~25" deep, times 2 bays).

=====
Then there's the tanker drones, which usually appear to be mostly MQ-25s with a couple of the UCAVs fitted with a hose reel in one bomb bay and a fuel tank in the other bay.

=====
F-35Cs seem to have a slightly smaller spot factor than Super Bugs, 1.38ish versus 1.46 (Legacy Bug = 1). I have been guesstimating the FAXX spot factor at 1.55, and I am seeing estimates for MQ25 spot factors down about 1.1 (should be expected for tube-and-wing shapes).

Where I am struggling is the UCAV spot factors. I'm seeing 1.44 for the NG ATA proposal, and 1.36 for for the MDD A-12, but I'm not seeing which aircraft is the 1.0. I'm also confused how the NG ATA has a higher spot factor than the MDD, given that the NG design folded into hexagons which tend to pack better than a 5 sided "home plate" design.
Click to expand...
It's clear their assumption for F/A-XX is an evolved F-35 with the 3-stream engine, hence, same spot size of 0.99. But now that's been abandoned by the Navy for clearly a two-engine design. So the (internal) weapon's load assumption differs. I assume spot size to be ~1.5 same as F14.
That said they assumed all striker craft to contribute 8 shots minimum.
A strike force of all aircrafts but for 4 escorts. Some will have or do buddy tanking on the side. Same for "converted" dedicated tankers.
About 54 total with 34 shooters for 274 shots at 1300 NM.
 
Reddington777 said:
You could at lest credit Rodrigo and I... or you know, ask for permission …
Click to expand...

I agree !

insidersource said:
Both of your names are in the image in the bottom right corner….
Click to expand...

That not necessarily is the permission to post it and, as Reddington wrote, to convert it one way or another.

His post #1970 actually has to be read as a subsequent permission, but please, for the next time, ask before !
 
Reddington777 said:
You could at lest credit Rodrigo and I... or you know, ask for permission as to whether I'm okay with you taking my work and misrepresenting it (and I'm not. If you want to do an F/A-XX, do your own. Don't take my F-47 model and make it what it's not)
Click to expand...
Watch it show up on TWZ now.
 
Proposed 2040 CVW Configuration

The proposed 2040 CVW is illustrated in Figure 56. Although it includes about the same number of aircraft as today’s CVW, it would require a smaller number of spot factors because new aircraft such as the UCAV would take up less space than legacy F/A-18 E/Fs.

The combination of longer-range, consistent payload, and more compact aircraft would also improve the payload efficiency of the proposed 2040 CVW compared to today’s fleet. The proposed UCAV, for example, takes up about three-fourths of the space of an F/A-18C Hornet (which is equal to a spot factor of 1.0). Although the proposed 2040 CVW includes a few more aircraft than today’s CVW, it would only take up 60 F/A-18C-sized spots compared to the 70 spots in today’s CVW. The maximum number of spots available in a Nimitz-class CVN is about 98 to 104, enabling the future CVW to incorporate additional aircraft to address emergent mission requirements.

From Clark et al
 
jmspeedfreak said:
I assume that has a couple of SiAW in the radome. If that has the three stream engine what will it supercruise at?
Click to expand...
Well the plasma cloak not only results in perfect stealth, it also enables supercruise at around Mach 10; top speed is ofc classified.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hey, @Reddington777 Would you be willing to run with my ideas for the FAXX? When you get around to making your model.

I don't have the computer software, hardware, or skill with CAD software to do it myself, and I find that really frustrating.
Click to expand...
I'll see what I can work into the planform first. Then I'll show you and you can see what else you'd like added.
insidersource said:
The F110 F-16 variant is only 40" wide and 46" tall.

It is worth noting that a lot of the engine diameters listed are the height that include the accessories. The width is much less and in most cases it's only 5-6inch wider than the fan diameter. This means your model is very conservative when it comes to engine bay size.
Click to expand...
I measured the F-16 intake area (generously for your estimates) to be 0.744m2. My current intakes in my updated model is already 0.64m2. With what you've described, it decreases my intake size by a further 10 percent. You are not going to be able to scoot the weapons bay forward.

Given that, what you've described (if your assumed engine measurements is right) is marginal at best and still doesn't make this design workable.

With 40 inches wide engine (and only then), you could fit your prescribed loadout width and depth wise, but longitudinally it's not going to fit with a tail hook attached. Weapon bay sizes aren't just the LxWxH of the weapon bay cavity. The doors on most stealth fighters are longer than the weapon bay cavity itself. If you left enough room for the weapon bay door to door length in addition to your prescribed 24x24x180", that leaves a meager 5 ft for the entire tailhook assembly - including the bay that houses the tailhook, which absolutely cannot conflict with the weapon bay doors. For reference - the entire F-22 tailhook "bay" measured out to 9.18 ft - that may or may not even account for the components responsible for rotating the hook. On the F-35 C, the entire tailhook fairing extends almost a full tailhook bay length further foreward in addition to the tailhook itself. Just measuring by longitudinal distance alone, it's already overlapping with your prescribed weapon bays - let alone needing to move it further forward to where the fuselage is deep enough to house everything.

I even gave you more leeway by cramming in the LRASMs as close as possible longitudinally without interfering with the weapon bay serrations. The end result leaves the F-22 tailhook popping out of the fuselage at the end.

With what you've proposed, and after helping your proposition a little more just to try to fit everything, you've got at least 43.9 ft of cavities lined up back to back - on an airframe that is 62 ft in length.
Jemiba said:
His post #1970 actually has to be read as a subsequent permission, but please, for the next time, ask before !
Click to expand...
Only because I felt bad being acerbic...

Since there is an F/A-XX configuration thread, this will be the last I'm going to discuss model specifics in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Training_Dummy said:
Proposed 2040 CVW Configuration

The proposed 2040 CVW is illustrated in Figure 56. Although it includes about the same number of aircraft as today’s CVW, it would require a smaller number of spot factors because new aircraft such as the UCAV would take up less space than legacy F/A-18 E/Fs.

The combination of longer-range, consistent payload, and more compact aircraft would also improve the payload efficiency of the proposed 2040 CVW compared to today’s fleet. The proposed UCAV, for example, takes up about three-fourths of the space of an F/A-18C Hornet (which is equal to a spot factor of 1.0). Although the proposed 2040 CVW includes a few more aircraft than today’s CVW, it would only take up 60 F/A-18C-sized spots compared to the 70 spots in today’s CVW. The maximum number of spots available in a Nimitz-class CVN is about 98 to 104, enabling the future CVW to incorporate additional aircraft to address emergent mission requirements.

From Clark et al
Click to expand...
I have no clue how their UCAV would be smaller than Super Bugs when the NG ATA proposal has a spot factor of 1.44, and the Clark et al UCAV would need to be even bigger due to the wider weapons bays required for 2x AGM-158 class per bay compared to what the NG ATA had. NG ATA bays were only 34" wide, while 2x AGM-158s means ~50-55" wide.



Reddington777 said:
I'll see what I can work into the planform first. Then I'll show you and you can see what else you'd like added.
Click to expand...
Sweet, thanks! See you in the FAXX thread.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hey, @Reddington777 Would you be willing to run with my ideas for the FAXX? When you get around to making your model.
Click to expand...
Here you go. I widened the fuselage aft of the canards by 30" to double the width of the weapon bay in my design. Total bay length is 30 feet.

faxxquadbay.jpg

Air-to-air loadout
2x AIM-174 in the front bays.
6x AIM-120 in the rear bays.
2x missiles in the side bays.

I know you love the AIM-174. It would extend into the rear bays. The rear bay doors have to open to release the AIM-174. The combined length of AIM-174 and AIM-120 is the same as two JASSM.

Self escort strike
2x 2,000lb JDAM in the front bays.
6x small diameter bombs in one rear bay.
1x AGM-88G in the second rear bay.
2x AMRAAMs on the rear bay doors.
2x missiles in the side bays.

Stand off strike or anti ship.
3x JASSM or LRASM.
1x AGM-88G.
1x AIM-120 on the door of the AGM-88G bay.
2x missiles in the side bays.

The design could probably get rid of the side bays and the main landing gear can retract forward. With this much added fuselage volume it would definitely have an empty weight above 20 ton. This is nearly 10 cubic metres of fuselage volume added to the fuselage.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 you said the opposite thing in the F-47 thread. I said:

insidersource said:
5) With the weapon bays moved forward a tail hook for a naval variant is possible
Click to expand...

In the F-47 thread you said:
Reddington777 said:
Why? To entertain your shared navy design? There is a tail hook
Click to expand...

You said there was space for a tail hook In your design WITHOUT moving the weapon bays into the nose. Now you are saying there isn't enough room for a tail hook in my design even with moving the weapon bays forward into the nose. You have things backwards.

Reddington777 said:
If you left enough room for the weapon bay door to door length in addition to your prescribed 24x24x180", that leaves a meager 5 ft for the entire tailhook assembly - including the bay that houses the tailhook, which absolutely cannot conflict with the weapon bay doors.
Click to expand...
My design has more than 10 feet of space for the tailhook.

Reddington777 said:
With what you've proposed, and after helping your proposition a little more just to try to fit everything, you've got at least 43.9 ft of cavities lined up back to back - on an airframe that is 62 ft in length.
Click to expand...
JASSM and LRASM are 14 feet long. My bay is 30 feet long with no middle bulkhead. There is already 2 feet of clearance. To be conservative we can add an additional 2 feet of clearance and further 2 feet for the bay door overhang. Total length is now 36 feet.

For a 62 foot long aircraft this gives 26 feet of length remaining. My design has 16 feet in the nose for the nose gear, EOTS and nose cone. The F-35 uses only 14 feet.

This leaves 10 feet for the tail hook which is plenty.
 
insidersource said:
You said there was space for a tail hook In your design WITHOUT moving the weapon bays into the nose. Now you are saying there isn't enough room for a tail hook in my design even with moving the weapon bays forward into the nose. You have things backwards.
Click to expand...
Are you dense? What you called for lengthened the goddamn weapon bays that I made. My weapon bays were 13 ft long per bay before you decided to mess with my model. I should also add that my tailhook as I originally modeled it was marginal at best. It likely didn't have enough distance to hang low enough to snag wires.
insidersource said:
My design has more than 10 feet of space for the tailhook.
Click to expand...
Bullshit
insidersource said:
JASSM and LRASM are 14 feet long. My bay is 30 feet long with no middle bulkhead. There is already 2 feet of clearance. To be conservative we can add an additional 2 feet of clearance and further 2 feet for the bay door overhang. Total length is now 36 feet.
Click to expand...
1767930821672.png
30 ft here is marked from the start of the weapon bay door. The last remaining part is 7 ft - that's how much space you have left for a tailhook. A tailhook isn't just the tailhook assembly. On the F-35, the tailhook appears to need to be lower than the rest of the fuselage to catch properly. The fairing starts way ahead of the actual hook. That doesn't even factor into the fact that the last few inches isn't thick enough for a wheel hook assembly.

1767931669484.png
1767931748610.png

62 ft is overall. Not centerline length. The usable space sits between the intakes, which we've been over - they cannot be made smaller and that space between the intakes literally cannot be wider without making the fuselage wider. The available space to plan for weapon bays starts just aft of the intakes and ends where isn't enough depth left in the fuselage to fit a weapons bay.

Insider - if you aren't going to read, entertain and listen to what I tell you about the model that I spent 4 months working on - then you are no longer welcome to use my model for anything. You can instead make your own model.

Also please stop posting shit on this thread. There are dedicated threads for different F/A-XX configurations now.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
Insider - if you aren't going to read, entertain and listen to what I tell you about the model that I spent 4 months working on - then you are no longer welcome to use my model for anything. You can instead make your own model.

Also please stop posting shit on this thread. There are dedicated threads for different F/A-XX configurations now.
Click to expand...
Guy really is getting on my nerves, reminds me of those twats on twitter who take someone else's art, runs it through AI and says they are "improving it" without any permission.
 
insidersource said:
My design has more than 10 feet of space for the tailhook.
Click to expand...

Reddington777 said:
Bullshit.
Click to expand...

faxx lower dimensions.jpg

I just placed some measurements on my design.
32' long bay doors. Two JASSM missiles are 28' long. Everything fits perfectly.

You can add a foot or two to the bay doors and still have the required 10+ feet for the hook.

I'm not sure where you got 5 feet from. Scott Kenny has been suggesting tandem bays to fit four JASSM in F/A-XX for the last 6 months. I'm not sure why you are suddenly saying the bay will now be too long.
 
Last edited:
insidersource said:
View attachment 797926

I just placed some measurements on my design.
32" long bay doors. Two JASSM missiles are 28" long. Everything fits perfectly.

You can add a foot or two to the bay doors and still have the required 10+ feet for the hook.

I'm not sure where you got 5 feet from. Scott Kenny has been suggesting tandem bays to fit four JASSM in F/A-XX for the last 6 months. I'm not sure why you are suddenly saying the bay will now be too long.
Click to expand...
That's it insider. I've had it with you. You clearly refuse to read anything I've written.

Though I can't stop you from doing what you want - you no longer have my consent to use my model.
 
Reddington777 said:
That's it insider. I've had it with you. You clearly refuse to read anything I've written.

Though I can't stop you from doing what you want - you no longer have my consent to use my model.
Click to expand...
Insider do your own model , what you are showing have No -sense this is just an exemple of what the F-47 /FA/XX could look like , speculation of hours about it have no interest. Reddington777 or Rodrigo Avella models are beautiful and are here just for the pleasure of our eyes in the awaiting of the real F-47 roll out.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom