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

[Scott Kenny]

However, there's a need for a lot of electricity generation which means they must have sufficient power for allocation.
The legacy engines don't have that much default power and require not just core updates to the chamber but also drive train generator or have them eternally tied to the gearbox. At least 3-4x legacy power.

Well, the CFM56-7 does have extra accessory drive strength for the E-7 and P-8, nevermind just how much electrical power a passenger compartment with 150ish entertainment systems would normally draw.

Which is a strong vote in favor of an F101/F110 derivative, IMO.

What I'd really like to know is how GE set up the YF120 engine's variable-cycle doors etc, to see how much volume that added relative to the F119.

Has anyone ever found a rough sketch of the YF120s?

In any case, I do expect engines to be similar in size for either F47 and F/A-XX. It's why I kept them both pretty much the same. And lets not forget there's also the intention of having them be modular for future upgrades or iterations.

They're definitely similar in thrust levels, IMO. I'm expecting F110/F119 thrust levels, ~32,500lbs give or take.

Although, I think USAF and Navy airframes sections won't be mixed ever.

Very likely not, unless someone arm-twists the USAF into buying FAXX as the real Strike Eagle replacement. And IF the F-47's weapons bays are large enough to hold things like SiAW they're also large enough to at least hold 1000lb weapons if not 2000lb and possibly JSM (19x20" box), which means that F-47 can fill the role of Strike Eagle without (much) modification. Maybe only bulged bay doors, if mods are needed. (IIRC they bulged the bay doors on the F-35B)

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Note this topic is in User Artwork and Models and should contain only speculative artwork of FA-XX and discussion of said artwork.

 

[Seragina]

What I'd really like to know is how GE set up the YF120 engine's variable-cycle doors etc, to see how much volume that added relative to the F119.

As part of redundancy requiremants starter generators (SG) are still needed. If you look at my drawings there are SG and E/SG (emergency).

Has anyone ever found a rough sketch of the YF120s?

The chinese and Nato have a theoretical drawing.

Very likely not, unless someone arm-twists the USAF into buying FAXX as the real Strike Eagle replacement. And IF the F-47's weapons bays are large enough to hold things like SiAW they're also large enough to at least hold 1000lb weapons if not 2000lb and possibly JSM (19x20" box), which means that F-47 can fill the role of Strike Eagle without (much) modification. Maybe only bulged bay doors, if mods are needed. (IIRC they bulged the bay doors on the F-35B)

more about that later.

As you can see here I've marked some fancy features.
An inlet above and before the nozzle that follows the recent civil trend of boundary layer ingestion engines. In this case it's more along the line of good old venturi effect used to cool nozzles like on the F111 among others. Apparently, it's also being used with the MQ48 Talon Blue.
There's still a problem with ground clearance when tires are flat. Key issue is the nose wheel can't be made longer without messing up internals. So I've been eying Rafale's nose wheel as the solution but needing it to fold in reverse.

 

[Sferrin]

As part of redundancy requiremants starter generators (SG) are still needed. If you look at my drawings there are SG and E/SG (emergency).

The chinese and Nato have a theoretical drawing.


more about that later.

As you can see here I've marked some fancy features.
An inlet above and before the nozzle that follows the recent civil trend of boundary layer ingestion engines. In this case it's more along the line of good old venturi effect used to cool nozzles like on the F111 among others. Apparently, it's also being used with the MQ48 Talon Blue.
There's still a problem with ground clearance when tires are flat. Key issue is the nose wheel can't be made longer without messing up internals. So I've been eying Rafale's nose wheel as the solution but needing it to fold in reverse.

B-58's nose gear:

https://aviationhumor.net/the-fancy-convair-b-58-nose-gear-retraction/

 

[Seragina]

B-58's nose gear:

https://aviationhumor.net/the-fancy-convair-b-58-nose-gear-retraction/

Thanks! It's the same mechanism scheme just a bit more complicated.

 

[JJPET]

FAXX is supposed to replace the hornet im imagining a very large IWB and maybe stealth external pods for weapons maybe not as great as the hornets load but close to it atleast with compact munitions

 

[Manuducati]

(Super) Hornet weapons load is not great at all when you consider it needs three external fuel tanks and a targeting pod for most strike missions. Basically 2 GBU + 2 AGM + 3 AAM.

 

[Scott Kenny]

(Super) Hornet weapons load is not great at all when you consider it needs three external fuel tanks and a targeting pod for most strike missions. Basically 2 GBU + 2 AGM + 3 AAM.

But that is about on par with what ATA was supposed to haul.

 

[Manuducati]

But that is about on par with what ATA was supposed to haul.

I'm aware of that. That's the affirmation "weapons (load) not as great as the Hornet" I was debating.

 

[Training_Dummy]

FAXX is supposed to replace the hornet im imagining a very large IWB and maybe stealth external pods for weapons maybe not as great as the hornets load but close to it atleast with compact munitions

This is the same service that hung a plain old refueling pod on a dedicated refueling aircraft that makes clear LO trades (intake for one), so you should absolutely be emotionally prepared for the USN to regularly fly F/A-XX with external stores!

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm aware of that. That's the affirmation "weapons (load) not as great as the Hornet" I was debating.

But it does indicate that "4x A2G for 800nmi" was considered acceptable by the USN for an extended period.

So I think that load is reasonable for the internal payload of FAXX, plus 4x ~5000lb wing pylons for LO fuel tanks and/or AGMs in a beast mode.

 

[Seragina]

This is the same service that hung a plain old refueling pod on a dedicated refueling aircraft that makes clear LO trades (intake for one), so you should absolutely be emotionally prepared for the USN to regularly fly F/A-XX with drop tanks.

I think there should be stealthy versions coming similar to the F35 gunpods.


For the time being a quick look on my current solution. I've cleaned it up for easy identification of different store types.
In this case Mk84, Mk83, SDB, JASSM, and AIM120. Mk82 would be in the same location as Mk83. SDB and Mk82 are tandem loaded behind each other.
More detail later as it take a bit of work to set things up.

 

[Scott Kenny]

For the time being a quick look on my current solution. I've cleaned it up for easy identification of different store types.
In this case Mk84, Mk83, SDB, JASSM, and AIM120. Mk82 would be in the same location as Mk83. SDB and Mk82 are tandem loaded behind each other.
More detail later as it take a bit of work to set things up.

Is that a 2-weapon side bay? AMRAAM and Mk83?

(Side note: AGM-154 JSOWs have the same 13" box size as Mk83s.)

 

[Seragina]

Is that a 2-weapon side bay? AMRAAM and Mk83?

(Side note: AGM-154 JSOWs have the same 13" box size as Mk83s.)

Yes, it's a combined side bay that is actually divided into 2 staggered bays with not separation wall but separate doors for better concealment. The lower doors have to be coordinated with the main IWB in order to avoid collision, especially with door mounted stores. It's not a problem if there are no door mounted stores. They don't always come into play depending on store mix and also whether there's a centerline drop tank. Missile won't work with the drop tank, SDB seems to work but it's too tight for safety.
Updated the above graphic for illustrating lower bay deployment, the same way as with F22's LAU-141 launcher.
Side bay: No Mk83, SDB works, though..

All right, so far the IWB is basically the same I had before with the same opening size. The changes come from my shiveling rack experiments I did way back with the F47. They didn't work with the F47 smaller bay, but here I could take advantage of it.
The combintion of the angled bay and angled racks allowed a little tighter packing; "more spacing" for rack positioning allowing more convenient merging; and kept the opening/drop area minimized for stealth.

Here's the new mix with future/coming stores. The only "game changing" in calculation is the new MACE which seems to occupy a "new length" niche I didn't realize we needed. ALRRM occupies the same volume as AARGM-ER/SiAW but with its subcaliber 2nd stage it's the better choice for fitting. AARGM-ER/SiAW, JDAM-ER are the most unwildy stores only overshadowed by JASSM.
MK84 JDAM-ER is no go. To fit everything as is without worries ideally the bay needs to expand by 2" in every direction. Mk84 JDAM-ER requires another 4-6". So we are back with ATA's IWB being the best solution. I've added 70mm rocket pods. And updated with possible same sized MBDA's planned subcaliber ASRAAM or similar that are representative for the new AIM-9X compact version (CV).
Of all the new cheap mass stores RAACM being Mk82 size turned out to be the best fit. The others don't have folding tail wings/fins and their size doen't seem ideal. So it looks like none of them are good or efficient for IWB especially combined. MACE, RAACM, AIM-9X CV/SACM CUDA are the best addition for IWB atm. I expect another new hypersonic A2A at 7" and 144" in lenght coming we don't know about yet based on rocket science. And ofc all the missing powered standoff penetrator variants. It's the only type missing across all spectrum of stores.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes, it's a combined side bay that is actually divided into 2 staggered bays with not separation wall but separate doors for better concealment. The lower doors have to be coordinated with the main IWB in order to avoid collision, especially with door mounted stores. It's not a problem if there are no door mounted stores. They don't always come into play depending on store mix and also whether there's a centerline drop tank. Missile won't work with the drop tank, SDB seems to work but it's too tight for safety.

Very slick, sir! I like it!

Here's the new mix with future/coming stores.

That looks like you're only holding 2 rows of SDBs. Is there enough space in the airframe to make 3 rows of SDBs in tandem? Looks like another 70cm of bay length, ~5.7m instead of 5m.

 

[Seragina]

Very slick, sir! I like it!

That looks like you're only holding 2 rows of SDBs. Is there enough space in the airframe to make 3 rows of SDBs in tandem? Looks like another 70cm of bay length, ~5.7m instead of 5m.

Thanks.
No, 3 rows is too much. Such a plane likely will have A5 size and or with tandem center bay. It gotta be ATA flying wing design to keep spot size small. I don't see that happening with the fighter part of the requirement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

No, 3 rows is too much. Such a plane likely will have A5 size and or with tandem center bay. It gotta be ATA flying wing design to keep spot size small. I don't see that happening with the fighter part of the requirement.

You're not planning on F-14 spot size? Or more?

 

[Seragina]

You're not planning on F-14 spot size? Or more?

I don't plan to even try for a larger airframe.
The way I see it going for a larger size will raise the needed wing area too much and I would be forced to go for a delta and or end up with the lambda-wing-tail-end planform. It would increase wing sweep angle etc. All the things I want to avoid.
A longer frame increases wheelbase, track and wheel size which makes internal arrangement a bit more troublesome.
I'm still not happy with the gear. It's has grown more complex than I wanted originally. Currently, it's also very close to the CG and the wheelbase is already large which means the moment arm for the nose gear is large.
And then there's the fuel requirement. As seen with my preliminary calculation it's already at the limit imho. Anymore growth, and it becomes a bomber. I'm certain with all the new material &production technologies there's gonna be a 20-30% weight saving but I don't have sufficient data to model these. There are good (civil) equations out there but likewise they are outdated the moment any of this sort of progress is introduced. So it's more feasible on their end but not mine to try.
That siad with that saving margin in mind your dream IWB would be possible but it will incure about 12klb more weight to MTOW.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That siad with that saving margin in mind your dream IWB would be possible but it will incure about 12klb more weight to MTOW.

Which would basically wipe out Beast Mode from carrier decks, since you're already assuming ~98,000lbs MTOW with 18klbs external, normal flight weight of 80klbs.

Crap.

Point taken.

 

[Seragina]

Which would basically wipe out Beast Mode from carrier decks, since you're already assuming ~98,000lbs MTOW with 18klbs external, normal flight weight of 80klbs.

Crap.

Point taken.

I went back and determined if I'm more flexible with the specs, and make concessions like getting rid of a larger wing & its fuel, not adjusting payload growth (since this won't add any other larger stores) etc.
The new structure will be absorbed by the savings and we are left with the fuel that could fit there. So about 200 gal at best. Not enough to make up the penalty but better than nothing.
This has become possible but I would rather go for a different design. One that I had abandon in the F47 thread which would allow more centered spacing for IWB. I've posted two posts on that but apparently one was removed by the admin because I used an anime example.
In any case, it needs to be modified and combined into a more wing like design. And I think basing this on the A/F-117 makes the best sense. It needs to be longer for the necessary fuel and payload expansion. The belly would need to be wider to fit our larger IWBs.
The wings will have to be a diamond.
How about it?

 

[Scott Kenny]

The wings will have to be a diamond.

You mean like on the Boeing EX Advanced Tactical Support Aircraft?

Or Like on the YF-23?

 

[Seragina]

You mean like on the Boeing EX Advanced Tactical Support Aircraft?

Or Like on the YF-23?

Like the YF-23 but tailess. Also clearly separated engines (but set closer than the center section), while the fuselage tapers out like a flying wing.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Like the YF-23 but tailess. Also clearly separated engines (but set closer than the center section), while the fuselage tapers out like a flying wing.

Interesting.

If you're game to draw it, I'd love to see it!

 

[Seragina]

Interesting.

If you're game to draw it, I'd love to see it!

I'll have it soonish since I already got the assets and at least 2 views done from the previous assessment.

 

[Seragina]

I'll have it soonish since I already got the assets and at least 2 views done from the previous assessment.

@Scott Kenny
Alright, planform was easy peasy match. Almost perfect, except wingspan is a bit short but more than that area is too large, hence, draggier than desired. The wing would require a complete makeover likely end up similar to the ISR drones. I'll leave it be.
It's noteworthy how it's superficial similar to earlier day designs from Boeing among others.

Side and front view more or less done just finer details aren't all aligned. IWB depth can be raised "freely".
I was hopping to have better gear positioning but it seems not that much better.
The design has complex minute curves and is deceptive in 2D view.
I consider this sufficiently representative for now.

 

[VTOLicious]

@Scott Kenny
Alright, planform was easy peasy match. Almost perfect, except wingspan is a bit short but more than that area is too large, hence, draggier than desired. The wing would require a complete makeover likely end up similar to the ISR drones. I'll leave it be.
It's noteworthy how it's superficial similar to earlier day designs from Boeing among others.

Side and front view more or less done just finer details aren't all aligned. IWB depth can be raised "freely".
I was hopping to have better gear positioning but it seems not that much better.
The design has complex minute curves and is deceptive in 2D view.
I consider this sufficiently representative for now.

Image is hard to read - Fixed that for you
What is the length / wingspan?

 

[H_K]

Looks subsonic. More A-XX than F/A-XX.

 

[EmoBirb]

Looks subsonic. More A-XX than F/A-XX.

What makes it "look subsonic" in your eyes? Genuinely curious

 

[H_K]

What makes it "look subsonic" in your eyes? Genuinely curious

Extremely wide cross section in the middle wing area causing peak drag. Stubby ends (both nose and tail) which are suboptimal for transonic drag reduction (too much drag rise).

Making this supersonic would require lengthening both ends. Move the cockpit forward and downward to reduce the humped look. Each weapons bay needs to be narrower (especially in the front part of the bay) to reduce the drag rise. All this would contribute to area ruling. Ideally there should also be some attempt at area ruling in the middle fuselage, perhaps by moving the engines back further behind the wing, or adopting a W shaped wing trailing edge.

Also it would help to draw the air intakes in the front view to understand the cross section shape near the wing leading edge. The area of the intakes should be ~80% (roughly) of the engine inlet area.

 

[Hydroman]

How about a blended NATF-23 but with out the verticals and placing the inlets on top similar to the recent NG concept?

 

[H_K]

How about a blended NATF-23 but with out the verticals and placing the inlets on top similar to the recent NG concept?

Tailess NATF-23 is where my head goes too. Possibly replace the canards with Levcons to increase stealth.

Not sold on overwing air intakes... unless perhaps you could add an auxiliary air intake underwing to increase air flow during take-off and high alpha maneuvers?

 

[VTOLicious]

Tailess NATF-23 is where my head goes too. Possibly replace the canards with Levcons to increase stealth.
Not sold on overwing air intakes... unless perhaps you could add an auxiliary air intake underwing to increase air flow during take-off and high alpha maneuvers?

That's basically what I proposed in the Boeing F/A-XX thread...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ration-of-the-boeing-f-a-xx.50919/post-909031

 

[H_K]

That's basically what I proposed in the Boeing F/A-XX thread...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ration-of-the-boeing-f-a-xx.50919/post-909031

I know. Although IIRC I first suggested a tailless YF-23 NATF with LEVCONs a year ago in the main F/A-XX thread, when @Hydroman & I were having basically the same conversation (!).

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-navy-6th-gen-fighter-f-a-xx.45777/post-785858

 

[VTOLicious]

How about a blended NATF-23 but with out the verticals and placing the inlets on top similar to the recent NG concept?

Btw, do you happen to know what's the internal weapons load of NATF?

 

[Sundog]

Tailess NATF-23 is where my head goes too. Possibly replace the canards with Levcons to increase stealth.

Not sold on overwing air intakes... unless perhaps you could add an auxiliary air intake underwing to increase air flow during take-off and high alpha maneuvers?

So that's what my artwork looks like when it's modified.

 

[Scott Kenny]

@Scott Kenny
Alright, planform was easy peasy match. Almost perfect, except wingspan is a bit short but more than that area is too large, hence, draggier than desired. The wing would require a complete makeover likely end up similar to the ISR drones. I'll leave it be.

Oof, that is going to be very draggy at transonic speeds...

Which engineer did the area ruling on the YF-23? We need to grind out a whole bunch of area on this!

 

[Martes]

Image is hard to read - Fixed that for you

I don't know how it would fly, but it looks hellishly cute.

 

[Seragina]

All the critiques are correct. No surprise here. After all I did abandoned it in the first place before. But it was one that offered the most volume for large and deep IWB as Scott Kenny desired.
In any case it's a though case to optimize. I don't see a simple way other than reshaping half of the fuselage and remake the whole wing.
But for 2D the complex shaping won't be visible.
Anyhow, a quick comparison:

As you can see my other design's wing isn't ideal but my hands are tied here.

 

[VTOLicious]

I know. Although IIRC I first suggested a tailless YF-23 NATF with LEVCONs a year ago in the main F/A-XX thread, when @Hydroman & I were having basically the same conversation (!).

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-navy-6th-gen-fighter-f-a-xx.45777/post-785858

Haha, I suggested a tailless F-22 variant with LEVCONs two months earlier
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-f-47-ngad-speculation-and-theories.45737/post-769093

 

[Hydroman]

I agree with having Levcons in place of Canards would probably be fine a less aero and mission intrusive. Levcons or canards would more than likely be used in the following flight modes and conditions:

1. Carrier launch, approach and landing. Need very good control authority and high drag, high power setting condition.
2. Close-in dog fighting, again control authority for low-speed maneuverability.
3. In-flight refueling.

Levcons would seem to have the advantage of being locked-out for LO cruise penetrations since they can fair-up to the rest of the OML. Canards can have a disadvantage here and by nature, could degrade LO for head-on and front quadrants.

Just my opinion for a good "tailless" NG F/A-XX flight controls configuration:

1. Levcons.
2. At least 3 elevons per wing trailing edge.
3. 1 to 2 upper inlaid surfaces per wing upper surface.
4. 2-D Thrust vectoring, this can go either way. USN wants better low speed dog fighting, 2-D thrust vectoring. A fleet air defense, BVR fighter, no thrust vectoring exploit better LO.
5. May or may not need wing leading edge flaps.

The above are just my opinions based upon my years at N/NG and working various programs including YF-23 and working flight control actuation systems. Also, the joys of FWB control and stability including what well developed flight controls software can offer.