Possible configuration of the Boeing F/A-XX

[flateric]

Reserved for posts transfer from core F/A-XX discussion topic

 

[VTOLicious]

Attached are some pictures of a Boeing F/A-XX desktop model. It's the same model that Boeing showed in this video 13 years ago...

View: https://youtu.be/GDLas_2Qy-E?si=TWzPSPnoW2BNejFG

 

[flateric]

A little bit earlier...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...asfs-news-analysis-2008-2025.3536/post-242581

 

[FlyGuy369]

Some of my F/A-XX Work so far.

 

[insidersource]

Some of my F/A-XX Work so far.

Boeing has produced more than a dozen official renderings for F/A-XX over the last decade and they all have intakes in the normal (lower) position.

Only a Northrop Grumman rendering shows intakes above the wing. You might want to post your rendering to the Northrop thread. Boeing engineers might feel insulted if people were suggesting they would put intakes in the wrong spot.

 

[FlyGuy369]

Boeing has produced more than a dozen official renderings for F/A-XX over the last decade and they all have intakes in the normal (lower) position.

Only a Northrop Grumman rendering shows intakes above the wing. You might want to post your rendering to the Northrop thread. Boeing engineers might feel insulted if people were suggesting they would put intakes in the wrong spot.

I think your thoughts and opinions are in the wrong spot. Admin or mods can we take care of this? This nonsense is messing up so many threads.

 

[insidersource]

I think your thoughts and opinions are in the wrong spot. Admin or mods can we take care of this? This nonsense is messing up so many threads.

The renderings produced on this forum are being used by multiple youtube channels. We now have a feedback loop where members are producing additional renderings based off the youtube videos.

They are also totally different to the official Boeing F/A-XX renderings. Google images is now full of the unofficial renderings. This doesn't make my opinion wrong.

Here is an official F/A-XX rendering released by Boeing. It looks very similar to renderings from the Boeing F-47 thread.

 

[FlyGuy369]

Phantom Works would like to have a word with you.

 

[Reddington777]

Phantom Works would like to have a word with you.

He loves to pick what works for his argument and completely ignore everything else, and his "forum participation" is him literally repeating shit like a broken record without actually reading or engaging stuff other people have said in response. Then as soon as you prove him wrong, its like someone hit the repeat button on the broken record player again.

Some of my F/A-XX Work so far.

Good stuff. You could probably use what VTOLicious had for intake ramps. That could mitigate some dorsal intake problems for high AoA. Looking forward to seeing the weapon loads!

 

[FlyGuy369]

Appreciate you man!

 

[insidersource]

Phantom Works would like to have a word with you.

That's concept is from September 2011 and predates the F/A-XX and NGAD programs even starting.

The F/A-XX program started in April 2012 with the RFI. Boeing responded with a rendering showing intakes in the conventional position. They have since remained consistent with their F/A-XX renderings for the last 14 years. Boeing knew 14 years ago that their concept with intakes above the wing could never satisfy the manoeuvring requirement.

https://www.flightglobal.com/boeing-unveils-updated-f/a-xx-sixth-gen-fighter-concept/109292.article
It is only this forum that has fueled the idea of Boeing placing intakes above the wing. It has created a feedback loop.

 

[Seragina]

You missed the last publication:

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/kendall-new-re-imagined-ngad-cost-less-f-35/

 

[BonPlan2]

Same history at the F-35 developpment phase. It was expected to have the cost of a F16....
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/kendall-new-re-imagined-ngad-cost-less-f-35/They all forget the Augustine law....

 

[Reddington777]

It is only this forum that has fueled the idea of Boeing placing intakes above the wing. It has created a feedback loop.

Actually no. This is just flat out you making up shit and being outraged for no goddamned reason - like you always do.

Literally nowhere else in the forum has anyone said anything about how F/A-XX MUST have dorsal intakes. Its been only discussed sporadically at best. There is no feedback loop regarding these intakes. This is a fucking art thread. People can depict what they want and people choose to depict dorsal intakes because its new, novel and not easily envisioned. Its also fitting here because both companies have depicted dorsal intakes for their F/A-XX and dorsal intakes arent a new concept for attack aircraft (ATA and you can even say the A10 has dorsal intakes).

The irony is the only feedback loop ive seen on this forum was perpetuated by you.

You spread so much literal bullshit and do so little to actually engage with forum members youve poisoned almost every fucking thread youve been in. Anytime youre proven wrong you move on to the next cherry picked bullshit you can think of just to keep chugging on with the bullshit train - even if it flies against almost anything thats been reported. Literally some 30 pages of F/A-XX was you and your bullshit. Literally all of the Lockheed secret plane thread was also just you and your bullshit.

If you don't want to work with facts, you do you. Dont come gatekeep what people can and cannot depict in an art thread - especially since dorsal intakes on a boeing fighter HAS been depicted as well as ventral intakes.

With all do respect, either quit your bullshit or find another forum to poison.

 

[FlyGuy369]

That's concept is from September 2011 and predates the F/A-XX and NGAD programs even starting.

The F/A-XX program started in April 2012 with the RFI. Boeing responded with a rendering showing intakes in the conventional position. They have since remained consistent with their F/A-XX renderings for the last 14 years. Boeing knew 14 years ago that their concept with intakes above the wing could never satisfy the manoeuvring requirement.

https://www.flightglobal.com/boeing-unveils-updated-f/a-xx-sixth-gen-fighter-concept/109292.article
It is only this forum that has fueled the idea of Boeing placing intakes above the wing. It has created a feedback loop.

Which maneuvering requirement? Have you seen their patent solution on correcting for attached flow to the upper surfaces and intakes? (Hint: its featured in one of my images!) Look broskie, I'll be real and upfront, I see you want to be renowned here and want to engage in intellectual discourse, but your level of research and approach to these conversations are coming up short. I would be more than happy to engage with you if you could correct yourself.

But there's two more things to all of this:

1. There are people here who know what the final (proposed) designs look like, but OPSEC and chill.

2. This place is supposed to be for fun and sharing of common interest. No one here wants to deal with lack of respect or DYOER. Clean it up.

 

[FighterJock]

True FlyGuy369 no one wants someone on this forum getting into trouble with the respected authorities.

 

[Reddington777]

True FlyGuy369 no one wants someone on this forum getting into trouble with the respected authorities.

This isnt about what "authorities" said about anything. The authorities can be wrong or unfair. People can have differing ideas but at the very minimum, even the most contentious debates on this forum has people who acknowledge and address what each other says even when they disagree. Just goes look at any of the FFG(X) or FF(X) threads or even the J36 thread.

With him, its the way he chooses to engage with people is fucking cancerous.

It doesnt matter how much good will you extend to him. He completely refuses to entertain ideas from other people, he doesnt even read the comments hes responding to. He ignores basic facts, cherry picks what works for him and no matter how much evidence is stacked against his idea, he will continue chugging on and on and on with utter bullshit without actually addressing any of the evidence presented against what he believes in. All he will do is repeat the same wrong timelines, shit taken out of context, or citing his own wet dream borne out of stringing unrelated things together and present that as his "evidence" - and again all while completely refusing to reconcile these things with actual, literal reported facts from the government and there military. He does this across threads, across dozens of pages per thread.

Numerous people - not just the typical "authorities" - have tried to engage with him, haved tried to ask him to reconcile gaps and contradictory evidence in the things hes said and he chooses instead to simply not read / address / or acknowledge contradiction.

If anything, this is an instance where the real authorities haven't done a damn thing to prevent this behavior.

 

[flateric]

You missed the last publication:

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/kendall-new-re-imagined-ngad-cost-less-f-35/

this is not an official rendering with inlets that will not work

 

[raptor82]

FYI：

 

[FlyGuy369]

FYI：

View attachment 798472

 

[Seragina]

this is not an official rendering with inlets that will not work

Inlet over wings had worked on many before. The problem with this setup is it takes away wing estate or rather the leading edge and you lose some ift. That's why many move them back or elevate them over the wing to get it back. Some chose to integrate it nto the wing.
Anyhow, an example from
Boeing & Airbus: Arion
And many more from the SST hype:
Jaxa:
Since they are all supersonic they all are designs with the goal to reduce boom effects.

Edit: Also note the F117 is also kind of this design.

 

[flateric]

Inlet over wings had worked on many before. The problem with this setup is it takes away wing estate or rather the leading edge and you lose some ift.

there are much more OTHER problems with inlet setup on Tsukamoto's drawing you can understand after ABC courses on aerodynamics
can we just drop it as bad non-official remake of old Boeing placeholder rendering?

 

[VTOLicious]

...
Good stuff. You could probably use what VTOLicious had for intake ramps. That could mitigate some dorsal intake problems for high AoA. Looking forward to seeing the weapon loads!

@FlyGuy369 Just in case you wanna follow Reddington's suggestion...

See also https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ion-of-the-boeing-f-47-ngad.45793/post-863501

 

[FlyGuy369]

So the novel solution boeing proposed was suction pumps around the inlet to help keep flow where its aft position was

 

[FlyGuy369]

More progress

 

[quellish]

The renderings produced on this forum are being used by multiple youtube channels.

Actions like these do not encourage people to share their work. Why would someone post something they made or obtained through hard work if someone - usually a bad actor - is going to use it for their own ends and profit?

 

[VTOLicious]

Spoiler alert! I'm currently working on a F/A-XX concept design!
The airframe will be wrapped around the A/G weapons bay that I introduced in the Northrop Grumman F/A-XX thread: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/possible-configuration-of-the-northrop-grumman-f-a-xx.50922/post-872524

There will be two of these bays side by side, with a little space for a "keel" in the middle.

This is what I have so far...

 

[VTOLicious]

LEVCONs, to increase lift during takeoff/landing/high AoA, enhance controllability, and and assist aircraft trim in cruise flight. That's why I opted for caret intakes with boundary layer diverters.

Btw, I'm not trying to copy any of the Boeing concepts; instead, I'm using the various F/A-XX / NGAD images which where published over the years as a source of inspiration and develop my own concept from them.
Haha, I just noticed that there are also similarities to the Airbus FCAS fighter. So the source of inspiration probably includes more than just F/A-XX / NGAD images.

 

[Scott Kenny]

@VTOLicious any chance for the slightly wider 1140mm bays?

I gotta admit, I still do not like parallel bays, but 10m worth of bays is a long airframe (A-5 sized bay). But everyone makes a good point about needing a keel for catapult stresses, and keels are not particularly compatible with single centerline bays.

 

[VTOLicious]

@VTOLicious any chance for the slightly wider 1140mm bays?

I gotta admit, I still do not like parallel bays, but 10m worth of bays is a long airframe (A-5 sized bay). But everyone makes a good point about needing a keel for catapult stresses, and keels are not particularly compatible with single centerline bays.

Before I started sketching this F/A-XX airframe, I decided on F-119 sized engines. This also allows me to use F-22/F-23 specifications as a reference. However, it's important to remember that both were designed as pure air superiority fighters.
Naturally, a strike fighter requires larger weapons bays than an air superiority fighter. Assuming everything else except of the airframe volume remains the same, the strike fighter will have reduced performance. This is acceptable, as long as the growth in volume and weight remains within reasonable limits (Think of an F-15 vs. an F-15E with CFTs). Last but not least, we must also take into account that this is a carrier-based aircraft. But let's leave that aside for now

I think the current size of the bays may already push the volume of the fuselage to the limit of what's acceptable. Here's a comparison of the cross-section with that of the F-23 (both at engine intake bulkhead).

 

[VTOLicious]

There is also AAM-bays at the sides...

 

[FlyGuy369]

Before I started sketching this F/A-XX airframe, I decided on F-119 sized engines. This also allows me to use F-22/F-23 specifications as a reference. However, it's important to remember that both were designed as pure air superiority fighters.
Naturally, a strike fighter requires larger weapons bays than an air superiority fighter. Assuming everything else except of the airframe volume remains the same, the strike fighter will have reduced performance. This is acceptable, as long as the growth in volume and weight remains within reasonable limits (Think of an F-15 vs. an F-15E with CFTs). Last but not least, we must also take into account that this is a carrier-based aircraft. But let's leave that aside for now

I think the current size of the bays may already push the volume of the fuselage to the limit of what's acceptable. Here's a comparison of the cross-section with that of the F-23 (both at engine intake bulkhead).
View attachment 800301

Whats was your fan area and exhaust area?

 

[VTOLicious]

Whats was your fan area and exhaust area?

I used F-23 internal arrangement drawings as a reference for the intake ducting.
Therefore the duct outside diameter at the engine face is 40"/ 1016 mm (0,81 m²) and at the front the capture area is reduced to ~75% of that. Exhausts nozzles are F-22 style, with yaw-paddles in addition.

 

[VTOLicious]

Some progress... I think this internal A/G loadout + 2 AAMs in defensive bays is reasonable, for a strike fighter roughly the size of an F-22.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I still think that the strakes on the AARGM-ER are wider than you're using. But the SiAW is likely different, and I've been using the dimensions of the JSM (19" wide, 20" deep) because JSM is explicitly able to fit into the bays of the F-35A.

 

[FighterJock]

Nice work VTOLicous liking what I am seeing, now all we need is the reveal. But will the new government shut down push it into the later part of the year? Let's wait and see, fingers and toes crossed that it is over before then.

 

[FlyGuy369]

Nice work VTOLicous liking what I am seeing, now all we need is the reveal. But will the new government shut down push it into the later part of the year? Let's wait and see, fingers and toes crossed that it is over before then.

Im hoping the new defense bill helps secure his funding so we can get his bird airborne by the early 2030's!

 

[VTOLicious]

I still think that the strakes on the AARGM-ER are wider than you're using. But the SiAW is likely different, and I've been using the dimensions of the JSM (19" wide, 20" deep) because JSM is explicitly able to fit into the bays of the F-35A.

The Starkes are certainly no wider than the control fins at the rear.

 

[Reddington777]

I gotta admit, I still do not like parallel bays, but 10m worth of bays is a long airframe (A-5 sized bay). But everyone makes a good point about needing a keel for catapult stresses, and keels are not particularly compatible with single centerline bays.

This has been my experience with tandem bays - particularly a size that VTOL was discussing. With that length, the lambda ESAV shape just doesn't make much sense. There's not enough length to cram the front landing gear, tail hook and then two tandem bays of that sized. Side by side bays do generally work better on my ESAV planform too.

Regarding AAM loadout, self escort would probably need 4 AAMs, but for the high end war, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of use cases for self escort. Your AAMs should (in theory) be on your CCAs, which would be flying alongside F/A-XX. However, for worst case scenarios, 2 is an uneasy amount when you've already sacrificed some speed and kinematics.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This has been my experience with tandem bays - particularly a size that VTOL was discussing. With that length, the lambda ESAV shape just doesn't make much sense. There's not enough length to cram the front landing gear, tail hook and then two tandem bays of that sized. Side by side bays do generally work better on my ESAV planform too.

I was trying to sketch something out on graph paper and it keeps not working. Frustrating as hell.

Regarding AAM loadout, self escort would probably need 4 AAMs, but for the high end war, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of use cases for self escort. Your AAMs should (in theory) be on your CCAs, which would be flying alongside F/A-XX. However, for worst case scenarios, 2 is an uneasy amount when you've already sacrificed some speed and kinematics.

HalfRAAMs would make that a lot easier.

Also, the 2018 Clark report ("Regaining the High Ground at Sea") suggests that most of the CCAs on a carrier will be subsonic ground attack birds, not AAM spear-carriers.