Artwork: possible configuration of the Northrop Grumman F/A-XX

Reddington777 said:
I thought current catapults still maxed at 80k. Does EMALs shoot higher weights?
Click to expand...
The catapults aren't limited by weight they are limited by energy over distance. Same with the arresting cables.

The catapult could shoot a 120k aircraft off the deck it will simple be travelling at around 100 knots. This means an aircraft with a lower take-off speed can be a heavier weight.

The same also applies with landing on the carrier. An aircraft landing at 50k and 130 knots will put more load on the arresting wires than an 60k weight aircraft landing at say 110knots. Remember it is mass multiplied by velocity squared. A small increase in landing speed massively increases the arresting cable loads.

This is why the large A-3 could still operate from the small carriers in the 1960's. The landing and take-off speeds were slower than the F-4 phantom. The A-3 had a MTOW higher than the F-14. The A-3 has 8 feet more wingspan than the F-14.

This is also why your F/A-XX renderings are ridiculous. You are designing for the maximum weight limit but not taking into account the landing and take-off speed. Your highly swept delta wing and no canards will mean it has a higher than average take-off and landing speed. The energy loads will be far too high.
 
Last edited:
Come to think of it though, the A-3 has a single wheeled nose landing gear without the giant support arms that F-18s and F-35s have.
1769240129632.png
Is this also because of the landing speed?
 
VTOLicious said:
Lately had some thoughts about a weapons bay optimized for air-to-ground / strike. The task was to efficiently accommodate various A/G weapons. Here is what I came up with:
Click to expand...
Nice work.
I also did try to fit 6x 2000 lbs into the double tandem for the F47 in the early days. I realized the Mk84 body was already compact, hence, the mid section was longer and did not match well with the tail fin placement etc. Anyhow, packing 2000 lb didn't save enough volume to be worth it but the reverse is a better choise.

One of the things that bothered me is how it's harder to pack more of the lesser weapons and match the payload values.
Here you can pack 2x 2000 lbs but it's hard to get 3x 1000 lbs, hence, 1000 lbs short. Or 5x 500 lbs, hence, 1500 lbs short.
I've been looking to construct a morphable bay design. The problem is how to get the "nose" cover to work that won't cave or create holes at Mach speed let alone the heating.
 
Seragina said:
One of the things that bothered me is how it's harder to pack more of the lesser weapons and match the payload values.
Here you can pack 2x 2000 lbs but it's hard to get 3x 1000 lbs, hence, 1000 lbs short. Or 5x 500 lbs, hence, 1500 lbs short.
I've been looking to construct a morphable bay design. The problem is how to get the "nose" cover to work that won't cave or create holes at Mach speed let alone the heating.
Click to expand...
It's one of the issues with bays.

For example, SDBs are 250lbs, but 4 of them (and their rack) take up as much space as a 2000lb bomb.

One of the interesting bits of the MDD A-12 was how they were packing the bays: 2x 2000 (or 1x AGM-84 and 1x GBU-15), 5x 1000, 8x 500lb. But each one of those took a separate rack setup. That's per bay.

It's also one of the reasons I was working on bays large enough to hold a pair of 25" wide AGM-158s. A 65" wide bay theoretically has enough space for 3x 2000lb.
 
Seragina said:
One of the things that bothered me is how it's harder to pack more of the lesser weapons and match the payload values.
Here you can pack 2x 2000 lbs but it's hard to get 3x 1000 lbs, hence, 1000 lbs short. Or 5x 500 lbs, hence, 1500 lbs short.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's difficult to design a versatile A/G-bay that is both compact and makes the best possible use of volume in every loading configuration.

Scott Kenny said:
It's one of the issues with bays.
...
One of the interesting bits of the MDD A-12 was how they were packing the bays: 2x 2000 (or 1x AGM-84 and 1x GBU-15), 5x 1000, 8x 500lb. But each one of those took a separate rack setup. That's per bay.
Click to expand...
I'd really like to know how that was realized. Do you have any details? Photos? Drawings?
The arrangement of the 5x 1000 / 8x 500 lb JDAMs would be of particular interest!
 
Last edited:
Sferrin said:
How does the realism compare to DCS?
Click to expand...
Fly out is basically a build your own aircraft simulator with “realism” in aerodynamics accounted for. If you come from this background you might find it easier then starting off with little to no knowledge in aircraft and aircraft construction. If you’re interested check out the YouTube channel Messier82. He’s the most famous one when it comes to flyout, as he essentially popularized the game.
 
VTOLicious said:
I'd really like to know how that was realized. Do you have any details? Photos? Drawings?
The arrangement of the 5x 1000 / 8x 500 lb JDAMs would be of particular interest!
Click to expand...
As I understand it, it was all unique racks, though the 8x500 could be something like a 4-rack on each of the 2000lb weapon pylons, similar to the SDB rack but bigger.

This made the whole bay roof a crazy set of brackets and bolt holes. 2 spaced parallel for missiles or 2000lb. 3+2 spots for the 1000lb weapons, not totally sure if those are all in a single row or in two rows. ATA bay was 185" long by 34" wide by 25" deep.
 
Scott Kenny said:
As I understand it, it was all unique racks, though the 8x500 could be something like a 4-rack on each of the 2000lb weapon pylons, similar to the SDB rack but bigger.

This made the whole bay roof a crazy set of brackets and bolt holes. 2 spaced parallel for missiles or 2000lb. 3+2 spots for the 1000lb weapons, not totally sure if those are all in a single row or in two rows. ATA bay was 185" long by 34" wide by 25" deep.
Click to expand...

I took measurements... These bays are huge! They are about 60" wide, 50" deep and 205" long.
Screenshot 2026-01-25 143639.png
 
Hello,
I'm sharing some images of what I think could be an FA-XX, based on the Northrop image where the aircraft is obscured by smoke.
I didn't base it exactly on the image. But I envisioned a fighter with side air intakes and no tail.
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this. Feel free to delete or move it.
Best regards!!! 01.jpg 02.jpg 03.jpg 04.jpg 05.jpg 06.jpg 07.jpg 08.jpg 09.jpg 10.jpg 11.jpg 12.jpg 13.jpg 14.jpg 15.jpg 16.jpg 17.jpg 18.jpg 19.jpg 20.jpg 21.jpg VISTA 01.jpg VISTA 02.jpg
 
VTOLicious said:
I took measurements... These bays are huge! They are about 60" wide, 50" deep and 205" long.
View attachment 799668
Click to expand...
Not debating the measurements, but I'm wondering how they got from "needs to be able to hold a GBU-15 and a Harpoon" clear up to 205x60x50.

edit: And no wonder that caused issues with the load paths!
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello,
I'm sharing some images of what I think could be an FA-XX, based on the Northrop image where the aircraft is obscured by smoke.
I didn't base it exactly on the image. But I envisioned a fighter with side air intakes and no tail.
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this. Feel free to delete or move it.
-SNIP-
Click to expand...
Oh my. Err...I'll be in my bunk if anyone needs me.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
As I understand it, it was all unique racks, though the 8x500 could be something like a 4-rack on each of the 2000lb weapon pylons, similar to the SDB rack but bigger.

This made the whole bay roof a crazy set of brackets and bolt holes. 2 spaced parallel for missiles or 2000lb. 3+2 spots for the 1000lb weapons, not totally sure if those are all in a single row or in two rows. ATA bay was 185" long by 34" wide by 25" deep.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's why I think the next generation has to have similar arresting arrangement. I bet GCAP should have something similar, too.
The F35 already got half a dozen of adapter structures of some kind if you check the Harris webpage. I expect all new racks and hopefully not too many adapters.

My current layout with the previously posted planform is at ~18.7 m in length and can at most fit a 5 m bay.
With such a bay without changes 5x 500 lb can be fit. With minor repositioning of the rack 6x will fit. It's one reason I think the bay should be slightly wider 1100 (1140) mm for better rack position fitting etc. That would allow the fitting of two more!! :D
IWB-2x2-1040mm-500lb-packing6x.png

In my pursuit of a "thinner" fuselage I had conceptualized a multi-link door which could adjust the volume depending on the size of the weapons. So far only one extra lever is needed to adjust it but two might be needed if there's a need for some configuration I don't know about yet.
conformal_doors_adjusting.png

Today, there is flexible hard skin technology and rubber-like material that would be more suitable.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're going to need a higher level of proof for this forum than a summary from a journalist.
Click to expand...

Congress reconciliation Bill 2025.jpg

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text
MihoshiK said:
...Enlighten me. Please.

Where in that summary by a journo do you see evidence of a common, shared program? It even mentions TWO EFFORTS.
Click to expand...

No, it is the exact wording from the Congress reconciliation bill. Using the same program name in both services budget means it is a shared program. This is standard naming convention with many examples. For example with the F-35 development both the USAF and US Navy yearly budgets had the same program name.

I don't know what higher level proof is needed than this. The wording is so crystal clear that it is an aircraft.

This is not off topic. The original post has a picture of the Northrop LRS aircraft. Many members have posted the A-12 information which is a subsonic strike aircraft.
 
Last edited:
I've found an interesting chinese patent on a bay design concept to minimize opening time while also not impacting aerodynamic.
I'm not so certain about the aerodynamic part and the separation.
According to the patent, the ordnance is mounted onto a "pallet" that basically serves as the door and pluging the bay opening.
The actual bay doors open up inside to give way to the ordnance. The release process is just dropping the ordnance-pallet "packet" and closing the actual doors. In theory this lessen than half the time the bay is exposed. It doesn't exactly say how the ordnance is being held or I missed that part. The text body is confusing. The introduction part makes the most sense to me.
Anyhow, it seems to me the flat pallet will cause the packet to thumble. I don't think that's good, unless they also use charges to separate the ordnance from the pallet at the same time.
CN118597423A-F4.png CN118597423A-F5.png
 
$9 billion for air superiority. The latest version of the bill deleted $1 billion in spending for classified programs and inserted $600 million for an Air Force long range strike aircraft and $500 million for a Navy long range strike aircraft - two efforts that do not seem to be associated with a publicly-known program of record.
Click to expand...

This came from a journalist. As has been pointed out many times (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...he-northrop-grumman-f-a-xx.50922/#post-868962 , etc), the actual text of the bill is:

$600,000,000 for the development, procurement, and integration of Air Force long-range strike aircraft;

$500,000,000 for the development, procurement, and integration of Navy long-range strike aircraft.
Click to expand...

This is very different. First, the journalist added "an Air Force long range strike aircraft". This one word changes the meaning significantly, implying that the funding is for a single Air Force or Navy aircraft.

It is not.

The bill text of "development, procurement, and integration" should have been a clue. These things do not normally go together, they are accounted for separately. For example, the F-22 has separate programs for development, integration, operations, etc. These are always separate, yet here they are all together. This should have been a red flag to anyone reading the bill.

insidersource said:
No, it is the exact wording from the Congress reconciliation bill. Using the same program name in both services budget means it is a shared program. This is standard naming convention with many examples. For example with the F-35 development both the USAF and US Navy yearly budgets had the same program name.
Click to expand...

No, what you originally posted was from the journalist, not from the bill. And the journalist changed the meaning by adding "an".

No, this is not standard naming convention. Normally funds would be allocated through Program Elements in the various parts of the DoD budget (i.e. in the Air Force R-1, etc.). This is not what was done here.

insidersource said:
I don't know what higher level proof is needed than this. The wording is so crystal clear that it is an aircraft.
Click to expand...

The "development, procurement, and integration of long-range strike aircraft" are a collection of long range strike related programs that are (mostly) pre-existing and openly discussed. They just put them all into two lines rather than list all of them. There are hundreds of pages of public documents that describe this.

The "higher level of proof" for the existence of some secret shared Air Force and Navy long range strike aircraft program would require evidence that counters all of the evidence that points to this part of the bill NOT being such a program.

For example, do you have Program Element Codes for this supposed program? Contract numbers? Have you.... asked DoD for any of these things?
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello,
I'm sharing some images of what I think could be an FA-XX, based on the Northrop image where the aircraft is obscured by smoke.
I didn't base it exactly on the image. But I envisioned a fighter with side air intakes and no tail.
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this. Feel free to delete or move it.
Best regards!!!View attachment 799778View attachment 799779View attachment 799780View attachment 799781View attachment 799782View attachment 799783View attachment 799784View attachment 799785View attachment 799786View attachment 799787View attachment 799788View attachment 799789View attachment 799790View attachment 799791View attachment 799792View attachment 799793View attachment 799794View attachment 799795View attachment 799796View attachment 799797View attachment 799798View attachment 799799View attachment 799800
Click to expand...


Hmm, in past i wondered if USAF/USN made a X-jet from existing assets, so swapping F-22's wings & stabs w/o rudders would look like this -

1769496845526.png
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello,
I'm sharing some images of what I think could be an FA-XX, based on the Northrop image where the aircraft is obscured by smoke.
I didn't base it exactly on the image. But I envisioned a fighter with side air intakes and no tail.
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this. Feel free to delete or move it.
Best regards!!!
Click to expand...
Question: can a DSI work with a backward-slanted inlet?
 
quellish said:
This came from a journalist. As has been pointed out many times (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...he-northrop-grumman-f-a-xx.50922/#post-868962 , etc), the actual text of the bill is:



This is very different. First, the journalist added "an Air Force long range strike aircraft". This one word changes the meaning significantly, implying that the funding is for a single Air Force or Navy aircraft.

It is not.

The bill text of "development, procurement, and integration" should have been a clue. These things do not normally go together, they are accounted for separately. For example, the F-22 has separate programs for development, integration, operations, etc. These are always separate, yet here they are all together. This should have been a red flag to anyone reading the bill.



No, what you originally posted was from the journalist, not from the bill. And the journalist changed the meaning by adding "an".

No, this is not standard naming convention. Normally funds would be allocated through Program Elements in the various parts of the DoD budget (i.e. in the Air Force R-1, etc.). This is not what was done here.



The "development, procurement, and integration of long-range strike aircraft" are a collection of long range strike related programs that are (mostly) pre-existing and openly discussed. They just put them all into two lines rather than list all of them. There are hundreds of pages of public documents that describe this.

The "higher level of proof" for the existence of some secret shared Air Force and Navy long range strike aircraft program would require evidence that counters all of the evidence that points to this part of the bill NOT being such a program.

For example, do you have Program Element Codes for this supposed program? Contract numbers? Have you.... asked DoD for any of these things?
Click to expand...
So what is it ?
 
dark sidius said:
So what is it ?
Click to expand...
He said it is "a collection of long range strike related programs that are (mostly) pre-existing and openly discussed."

This is the exact same definition used to describe both the NGAD and F/A-XX programs. Both are a collection of related programs including CCA. Both included a manned demonstrator. Both Wikipedia pages for NGAD and F/A-XX state this at the very top. "Field Systems" and "family of systems" are used.

A manned demonstrator could be included as one of the related long range strike programs. Quellish is always sneaky and ambiguous with his wording. He will say the program is not solely for a manned aircraft. He is technically right. But he won't say that a manned aircraft can't be included as one of the related systems.

https://simpleflying.com/why-northrop-grumman-built-crewed-loyal-wingman-drone/
Northrop publicly stated they fitted a cockpit to their Model 437 Vanguard drone to speed up testing. This larger Northrop long range strike aircraft could also be manned only for the testing phase. It then becomes the highest level loyal wingman drone in both the USAF and US Navy.

This also explains Reddington777 observations that the cockpit looks too small and far forward on the Northrop hanger video. It might be a temporary cockpit for testing purposes.
 
Last edited:
insidersource said:
Quellish is always sneaky and ambiguous with his wording. He will say the program is not solely for a manned aircraft.
Click to expand...

Then let me be very clear. This is not for an aircraft itself, manned or unmanned . It is for things like integrating weapons on aircraft, flight test supporting software upgrades, etc.

It is absolutely not a secret new aircraft. That is fantasy.
 
Look, understanding US Defence budgets is a complex affair. The text of the Bill voted on by Congress is a very high level Cliff's Notes version. Deep diving requires a lot of knowledge and time - there are books on the subject and you can download excel files and all kinds of stuff to analyse.

I don't have the time or inclination to do this research. quellish does, and his judgement is that this is just a placeholder line in the budget covering a number of largely known, existing and separate programs. His track record in this area over the years is pretty good.

I have little confidence in a random defence journalist doing the same deep dive to understand the money. They simply read the line in the bill and wrote an article.
 
quellish said:
Then let me be very clear. This is not for an aircraft itself, manned or unmanned . It is for things like integrating weapons on aircraft, flight test supporting software upgrades, etc.

It is absolutely not a secret new aircraft. That is fantasy.
Click to expand...
Ok for that but so what is the Area 51 Dorito ? could it have something to see with FA/XX?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Question: can a DSI work with a backward-slanted inlet?
Click to expand...

Hello.
There are several images from Boeing and Lockheed showing concepts for rearward-sloping DSI air intakes. I haven't actually tested it in a simulation yet. I use SolidWorks for fluid dynamics simulations, and this type of intake is something I want to try.
Here are some examples of rearward-sloping DSIs.

dsi-1.png
dsi 2.jpg
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello,
I'm sharing some images of what I think could be an FA-XX, based on the Northrop image where the aircraft is obscured by smoke.
I didn't base it exactly on the image. But I envisioned a fighter with side air intakes and no tail.
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this. Feel free to delete or move it.
Best regards!!!
-SNIP-
Click to expand...
thinking this over, I do wonder about a two-seater. It's unlikely that the USAF will have a two-seater NGAD, but FA-XX might have a two-seat variant.
 
All I can say about NFO is the rumor mill is that strike NFOs are going away once F and G sundown...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom