NGAD / F/A-XX - General Discussion and Speculation

4decaa said:
NG did not release new photos of the B-21 today. Sorry if that comes off as rude. I just got real excited!

Also; I highly doubt that anything sensitive would be flying in broad daylight, at low-altitude, and near populated areas.
Click to expand...
Given the contrails I'm assuming it would be above at least 25kft so not exactly low altitude. I'm not sure what it is, could be any of a number of things, but I agree with the suggestion it likely isn't an F-47 or similar not yet revealed program.
 
Jackonicko said:
Yeah. And how often do you think F-14s actually carried six AIM-54s, and how many do you think the planners thought they would carry, and scaled the carriers to have available?
Click to expand...
Often enough that the flight planning existed, including a half-load of 20mm ammo to make room for another couple hundred lbs of fuel when landing with ~6000+lbs of missiles.

Pilots didn't like the fuel margins, though. With 6x Phoenix missiles they had to either land the first time or hit a tanker within a few minutes.

Which is why the usual load for a Tomcat was 4+2+2. Gave them an extra 1000lbs of fuel in the plane when landing so if they bolted they could just go around and try again.


Jackonicko said:
EG not enough to penetrate beyond China's A2AD envelope - and not enough to reach even coastal targets...
Click to expand...
Note that was with F-22 fuel consumption. Which is kinda thirsty compared to an F110 engine like the FAXX is supposed to be flying on to start with.

All a carrier really needs is enough range to reach coastal targets, with the possible exception of needing something able to hit the AShBM launchers. And oh look, that's what CPS and Tomahawks are for.
 
Sferrin said:
Often enough that they tested the six AIM-54 shot and the Tomcat was equipped to do it. You wouldn't spend the time and effort for that if you never intended to use it.
Click to expand...
You do know that they tested it just once, against targets approaching across a relatively narrow front, and that not all the weapons actually hit their targets?

Bringback, coupled with the high cost of the weapon, meant that they carried two missiles most of the time.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Often enough that the flight planning existed, including a half-load of 20mm ammo to make room for another couple hundred lbs of fuel when landing with ~6000+lbs of missiles.

Pilots didn't like the fuel margins, though. With 6x Phoenix missiles they had to either land the first time or hit a tanker within a few minutes.

Which is why the usual load for a Tomcat was 4+2+2. Gave them an extra 1000lbs of fuel in the plane when landing so if they bolted they could just go around and try again.



Note that was with F-22 fuel consumption. Which is kinda thirsty compared to an F110 engine like the FAXX is supposed to be flying on to start with.

All a carrier really needs is enough range to reach coastal targets, with the possible exception of needing something able to hit the AShBM launchers. And oh look, that's what CPS and Tomahawks are for.
Click to expand...
That may have been possible with the later marks, but with TF30s, you couldn't bring back six Phoenix, and often not four.
 
Jackonicko said:
You do know that they tested it just once, against targets approaching across a relatively narrow front, and that not all the weapons actually hit their targets?

Bringback, coupled with the high cost of the weapon, meant that they carried two missiles most of the time.
Click to expand...

There were 4/5 “hits”, with three direct impacts and one pass within lethal distance. One miss and one target failed to activate its target enhancement system (to mimic a bomber sized target).

That said you rarely saw F-14s with any AIM-54s in photos of actual operations. It would require an extremely loose ROE to ever use them, and they have limited carry hours before they need to be stripped down for maintenance.
 
FighterJock said:
You were more likely to see F-14s carrying AIM-7s than AIM-54s because the Pheonix was so F******* expensive or at least that was what I had heard at the time.
Click to expand...
Yes, but largely (AIUI) because cycling through catapult launches and arrested recoveries puts a lot of strain on delicate missiles -- this was one of the big issues in Vietnam -- and so it was best to keep the Phoenixes in the nice storage containers in the magazines for when they might be needed, vs rattling around on pylons.
 
insidersource said:
Definitely a raptor. You can clearly see the space between the horizontal stabs. They extend quite far aft of the engine exhausts. Also I can see the gap between the wing and horizontal stabs.
Click to expand...
It don't match the Raptor tail shape
 
whatismoo said:
Yes, but largely (AIUI) because cycling through catapult launches and arrested recoveries puts a lot of strain on delicate missiles -- this was one of the big issues in Vietnam
Click to expand...

I was surprised and disgusted to read years ago (Back in the 90s) that during the Vietnam War the AIM-7Es being carried on USN and USMC F-4s stayed mounted on the same aircraft for up to 50 times before being dismounted for servicing down below, no wonder they had such a high failure rate in combat (The AIM-7E used sub-miniature valves in it' electronics).
 
NMaude said:
I was surprised and disgusted to read years ago (Back in the 90s) that during the Vietnam War the AIM-7Es being carried on USN and USMC F-4s stayed mounted on the same aircraft for up to 50 times before being dismounted for servicing down below, no wonder they had such a high failure rate in combat (The AIM-7E used sub-miniature valves in it' electronics).
Click to expand...
Yeah! I think @Heatloss has looked into this
 
Jackonicko said:
That may have been possible with the later marks, but with TF30s, you couldn't bring back six Phoenix, and often not four.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. It could absolutely be done. The F-14A trapped with 6x Phoenix without any issues during the AIM-54C OPEVAL in 1983. Not a lot of margin though (just one or two passes before hitting the tanker).
Josh_TN said:
That said you rarely saw F-14s with any AIM-54s in photos of actual operations. It would require an extremely loose ROE to ever use them, and they have limited carry hours before they need to be stripped down for maintenance.
Click to expand...
A bit of an exaggeration. They were commonly carried during Desert Shield/Desert Storm and afterwards during Southern Watch (enforcing the NFZ over southern Iraq) and Allied Force over Yugoslavia in '99. Phoenix wasnt carried much during Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (except during the initial stages) but that had more to do with the near total absence of aerial threats.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
The more I look at this engine nozzle, the more I see a free expansion ramp...Yes, you named it, an Aerospike.
There is no afterburner to be seen, hence the geometry would suggest an external combustion.

View attachment 778297
An illustration originally from Air International, if my mem stands right
Click to expand...
I have a feeling this nozzle is just a placeholder graphics
 
TomcatViP said:
The more I look at this engine nozzle, the more I see a free expansion ramp...Yes, you named it, an Aerospike.
There is no afterburner to be seen, hence the geometry would suggest an external combustion.

View attachment 778297
An illustration originally from Air International, if my mem stands right
Click to expand...
External combustion is completely different. Asymmetric external combustion would be a non-starter.

Turn this inside out and that's what you're seeing:

2030.jpg
 
You know, aerospike are just an application of the nozzle theory. So, in effect it is by definition... Turned inside out.
 
Everything I have from General Electric and Pratt & Whitney don't show anything like an aerospike.
It all suggests a axisymmetrical engine interface terminating in a 2D nozzle with a "stealthy" amount of serpentine bends. Every single one features a third stream integration, method, and uses of said third stream. @quellish, I messaged you privately.
 
But who need to be stealthy today when you light up the afterburner?
I am pretty sure we have a serpentine and auxiliary flow for fluidic vectoring. But the reheat is what puzzles me.
 
So what I do have shows three things.

1. Each three stream engine concept shows an afterburner and is described to a limited extent "it has afterburners".

2. Not only is there a 2D serpentine VLO exhaust, but there's also an axisymmetrical design (Boeing F/A-XX).

3. Fluidic TVC was a given benefit of the third stream along side cooler exhaust, fluidic supersonic nozzle with no moving parts, etc.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
So what I do have shows three things.

1. Each three stream engine concept shows an afterburner and is described to a limited extent "it has afterburners".

2. Not only is there a 2D serpentine VLO exhaust, but there's also an axisymmetrical design (Boeing F/A-XX).

3. Fluidic TVC was a given benefit of the third stream along side cooler exhaust, fluidic supersonic nozzle with no moving parts, etc.
Click to expand...
And Boeing has experience with that (X-36, X-45 and Bird of Prey).
 
A significant item of interest in seen through my spectral hyperfixation wasn't just TVC at the exhaust, but redirection to other areas of the platform to be coupled with conventional control surfaces. I know the aerospace giants have done similar research, but the third stream advennt appears to be integrated in "revolutionary" ways.
 
You never was shown for some reason I believe tail section on official Air Force F-47 renderings. Still, you are trying to make multi-page conclusions and theories based on PW video that 'shows' you much more intimate area of powerplant tract.
Can you just turn on logic or at least look at AETD/AETP ancestors test articles to stop this 'Aerospike' nonsense.
 
Speaking of speculation, I know there's suspicion that the 988-119 may be the closest we can theorize for the F-47, but let me tell you something, modeling the exhaust with the description on the drawings seem like a real life mechanical nightmare.
 
Last edited:
To the extent the USN was in the past fearful of ACE timelines - rightly it appears - and was worried designing F/A-XX with adaptive engines would stretch program timelines, you have to laugh at where the program stands today - delayed, perhaps indefinitely, with the silver lining that these delays might give the USN a chance to redesign F/A-XX to fly with adaptive engines right off the bat, assuming there are no operational bogeymen (huge assumption).

My understanding is that at least in the past, that USAF wanted power, cooling and thermal mgmt tightly integrated to maximize the benefits of the third stream; if F-47 does in fact fly with interim engines, would that require space and volume for a standalone PTMS with each engine or is this a non issue? Thanks in advance
 
Training_Dummy said:
To the extent the USN was in the past fearful of ACE timelines - rightly it appears - and was worried designing F/A-XX with adaptive engines would stretch program timelines, you have to laugh at where the program stands today - delayed, perhaps indefinitely, with the silver lining that these delays might give the USN a chance to redesign F/A-XX to fly with adaptive engines right off the bat, assuming there are no operational bogeymen (huge assumption).

My understanding is that at least in the past, that USAF wanted power, cooling and thermal mgmt tightly integrated to maximize the benefits of the third stream; if F-47 does in fact fly with interim engines, would that require space and volume for a standalone PTMS with each engine or is this a non issue? Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
That is a fair question. F-47 powered by interim F119 engines would be unlikely be able to provide the full avionics cooling required for full mission capability. Based on the NGAD engine size discussion, F119s would probably be able to demonstrate the airframe flight envelope on flight sciences test aircraft, but would be doubtful as interim engines for early production aircraft or even production representative test aircraft. You do have two engines with HPC discharge bleed capability (possibly twice current Single engine F135 bleed flow), but would be unlikely be able to fit fan duct ECS coolers like the F135 and wouldn’t be able to simulate the third stream duct cooling potential.
 
Regarding all of the discussion around canards on the F-47 (and now possibly F/A-XX) … Is there any reason to believe that the Boeing design doesn’t utilize LEVCON rather than canards? LERX have certainly improved handling on other airplanes that share the same mission profile, and LEVCON is sort of a continuation of that basic idea (in my overly simplistic way of understanding aerodynamics).
 
Is there any reasons to believe that the Boeing design doesn’t utilize LEVCON rather than canards if F-47 using canards? Why spent another hundreds page of discussion on canards vs. stealth or canards vs. LEVCONS instead waiting for more public info on Boeing F/A-XX design?
 
flateric said:
Is there any reasons to believe that the Boeing design doesn’t utilize LEVCON rather than canards if F-47 using canards? Why spent another hundreds page of discussion on canards vs. stealth or canards vs. LEVCONS instead waiting for more public info on Boeing F/A-XX design?
Click to expand...
I asked because I am curious. I’m relatively new to this board and my post was moved from another thread where I inquired. I’m still fining my way around…

I was led to believe this was the sort of place people were welcome to ask questions. Apologies for interrupting the flow, bud. I’ll do my best not to darken your doorstep in the future.
 
flateric said:
Is there any reasons to believe that the Boeing design doesn’t utilize LEVCON rather than canards if F-47 using canards? Why spent another hundreds page of discussion on canards vs. stealth or canards vs. LEVCONS instead waiting for more public info on Boeing F/A-XX design?
Click to expand...
Eh, why not honestly. If people would lay out the advantages and disadvantages of LEVCONS vs Canards in the theoretical use cases with proper quality sources and arguments we'd all at least learn something useful along the way. After all this is the thread for speculation, not news as that's the other thread. Meaning that's the place that's dormant until further news come out while here people should partake in informed speculation. Now how that's defined, I don't think that's up to me to decide and probably up to you and other staff members.

But on the same topic, I don't think there's much to support Boeing having ever seriously looked into LEVCONS while canards were present of various promotional renders (not necessarily worth much, but it reflects the concept being in the mind of the marketing department at least) and obviously present on the X-36 as well. With the J-20 representing the use of canards on a stealth air superiority fighter. While LEVCONS are present on the Su-57 as a stealth multirole fighter. So both concepts are viable, but canards seem more like the "low hanging fruit". Just my two cents.

Good night
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
With the J-20 representing the use of canards on a stealth air superiority fighter.
Click to expand...

This is not a valid assumption.
The US faces different threats than other countries do, and has different experience and capabilities with regards to reduced observables.

When people say “aircraft X is stealth” it’s a loaded statement. Stealth… to what degree? -20dBsm? -50dbsm? More?

Ummm… it has some serrations? Therefore “stealth”.
 
That annoys me too quellish. It is shape and materials that also make a stealth aircraft stealthy, not just serrations.
 
If you're going to speculate, why not shoot for the stars? After all, they wouldn't just keep boring old control surfaces and structures hidden would they? There must be something REALLY spectacular lurking under there....

My man PT Barnum knew all about keeping things covered until the last second to hold audiences on the edge of their seats.
 
quellish said:
Ummm… it has some serrations? Therefore “stealth”.
Click to expand...
So, you're arguing that the J-20 isn't a "stealth" aircraft?

I guess we have 2010 again.

But on a different note, how does this relate to the topic at hand? Shouldn't this go into the J-20 thread? I brought the aircraft up as it served as an example of a jet with canards which design aimed for a significant reduction of it's signature for radar. You continued because...?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom