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

[Reddington777]

Yet on February 19, 2025 GE announced they had completed design review of the XA102

GE Aerospace Completes Detailed Design Review of Adaptive Cycle Engine for U.S. Air Force | GE Aerospace News

CINCINNATI – February 19, 2025 – – GE Aerospace announced today the successful completion of the Detailed Design Review (DDR) for its XA102 adaptive cycle engine, a critical

www.geaerospace.com

From the article you posted above:

GE Aerospace announced today the successful completion of the Detailed Design Review (DDR) for its XA102 adaptive cycle engine, a critical milestone in support of the U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program. This accomplishment marks a significant step toward delivering revolutionary propulsion technology for the Air Force’s future fleet.

...The design review was presented to the U.S. Air Force, showcasing the comprehensive digital engine model and validating its readiness for the next phase of development.

Where is this conclusion being drawn from when the second article explicitly stated the second review - for the X102 engine - was for the air force NGAP program and nothing else? I haven't seen anyone say the navy was interested in NGAP or that the AF was funding it for the Navy. I've only seen the opposite being said.

The adaptive engines have now been scaled down to fit the smaller F/A-XX design which is why we have two design reviews.

The original larger adaptive engine were too big for the Navy design.

The larger AETP engines were made to be compatible with the F-35A in mind. They may have been too big for the navy's version of the F-35 and here are Kendall's exact words regarding that during the HASC hearing on 04-27-2023:

"...if there was something I regretted it was effectively we are not able to afford it. I support the decision that we did make, which is to go with the ECU which is the upgrade to the existing engine [ F135 ]. The AETP alternative offers significantly more cost, more range, and more fuel efficiency ... the only service that had a strong interest in that engine was the air force... there's a question as to whether or not you could get the AETP into the navy's version..."

They were scaled down because the F135 is quite a bit chunkier than then F119 engine. Most speculations put the scaled down VCE to be still somewhat larger than the F119 engine, which would make sense for an F-22 or YF-23 sized fighter.

Instead, the Air force, GE, and PW have indicated that the X102 and X103 engines (part of the NGAP program) was for the air force 6th gen fighter. All parties have also acknowledged that the X102 & X103 engines were informed by the AETP program that produced the larger X101 & X102 and then scaled down. But no one at any point indicated they were scaled down specifically for F/A-XX rather than F-47.

Sure if we go with the language that GE and PW uses, then that an X100/1 could be considered for other aircraft including F/A-XX, but I still can't find any definitive proof for any VCE engine for F/A-XX.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass and I would love to hear that the navy is getting a VCE engine too, but it sounds too good to be true.

 

[Sferrin]

Well F-15 is bigger and designed to a different set of requirements.

Eurofighter and Rafale emerged from the same requirements, with the initial point of divergence being that France wanted to cap empty weight at 9 tonnes while the other partners were OK with something in the 9.5-10 tonne range. In the end Rafale C came in at 9.5t (+5% over the initial spec) and Eurofighter at 11t... +10% over the spec, and +15% over Rafale C despite not having any naval penalty!

Different requirements. Maybe they were the same at one point, but they obviously diverged. As for the Rafale it was an 8% empty weight penalty to get carrier capability over the land-based Rafale.

 

[red admiral]

Eurofighter and Rafale emerged from the same requirements, with the initial point of divergence being that France wanted to cap empty weight at 9 tonnes while the other partners were OK with something in the 9.5-10 tonne range

The size/weight difference was precisely because they weren't designed to the same requirements, with Eurofighter aiming for higher performance.

F/A-18L is probably one of very few real world data points for land/naval jet fighters other than Rafale for which data is available. But even then it's not perfect because of other design changes.

 

[SlothmanAllen]

Funding F/A-XX could ‘delay’ F-47, White House warns Congress

The “Administration strongly supports reevaluating the F/A-XX program due to industrial base concerns of two sixth-generation programs occurring simultaneously,” the White House wrote. “Awarding the F/A-XX contract as written is likely to delay the higher-priority F-47 program, with low likelihood of improving the timeline to field a Navy sixth generation fighter.”

I really don't see how they can make a statement like this when China has the J-20, J-35, J-36 and J-50 all in production or design right now. This is supposed to be the peer threat you are pacing yourself against, and yet every year it looks like China manages to outpace the US in almost every regard.

So what if funding the F/A-XX delays the F-47? Both aircraft are desperately needed to just maintain the relevance of US air power going forward.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Well F-15 is bigger and designed to a different set of requirements.

Eurofighter and Rafale emerged from the same requirements, with the initial point of divergence being that France wanted to cap empty weight at 9 tonnes while the other partners were OK with something in the 9.5-10 tonne range. In the end Rafale C came in at 9.5t (+5% over the initial spec) and Eurofighter at 11t... +10% over the spec, and +15% over Rafale C despite not having any naval penalty!

The size/weight difference was precisely because they weren't designed to the same requirements, with Eurofighter aiming for higher performance.

F/A-18L is probably one of very few real world data points for land/naval jet fighters other than Rafale for which data is available. But even then it's not perfect because of other design changes.

I believe the French were rather aggressively trying to dictate much of the specifications for the new fighter and oddly enough these specifications aligned very closely with the new engine Snecma was working on. The UK's requirements (not sure of the others) seemed to point them towards something a bit heavier and with more thrust to compensate.

Requirements played a part to be sure, but I think a lot of it boiled down to industrial consideration. The French definitely wanted the lion's share of the work that would come with the project and wouldn't be swayed from the weight/performance class they were aiming for.

Now maybe that is a rather Anglocentric view of that program, but it's always been the impression I've gotten from reading over the years.

 

[Hull down]

Funding F/A-XX could ‘delay’ F-47, White House warns Congress



I really don't see how they can make a statement like this when China has the J-20, J-35, J-36 and J-50 all in production or design right now. This is supposed to be the peer threat you are pacing yourself against, and yet every year it looks like China manages to outpace the US in almost every regard.

So what if funding the F/A-XX delays the F-47? Both aircraft are desperately needed to just maintain the relevance of US air power going forward.

Reality is harsh.

 

[H_K]

I believe the French were rather aggressively trying to dictate much of the specifications for the new fighter and oddly enough these specifications aligned very closely with the new engine Snecma was working on. The UK's requirements (not sure of the others) seemed to point them towards something a bit heavier and with more thrust to compensate.

The M88 and EJ200 were both developed after the specs had diverged. So the requirements and weight projections drove the engine size, not the reverse (initially EJ200 weight estimates were about the same as M88, but EJ200 grew as Eurofighter's empty weight grew to maintain the required performance).

 

[Sferrin]

Funding F/A-XX could ‘delay’ F-47, White House warns Congress



I really don't see how they can make a statement like this when China has the J-20, J-35, J-36 and J-50 all in production or design right now. This is supposed to be the peer threat you are pacing yourself against, and yet every year it looks like China manages to outpace the US in almost every regard.

So what if funding the F/A-XX delays the F-47? Both aircraft are desperately needed to just maintain the relevance of US air power going forward.

Because manufacturing in the US is shit. No way to sugarcoat it. The entire education system needs to be gutted as well as "the message". For decades now everybody has been told the trades and manufacturing is for losers so there would be less push back as it was all shipped overseas, or people brought in under the table to "do jobs Americans don't want to do". You need to pay a lot of money for a useless degree and become an "influencer" or "Youtuber". This isn't some "back in my day" shit, it's seeing people come into a job and you wonder how they tie their shoes in the morning. This is something that would take decades of concerted effort to correct and that just ain't in the cards with today's politics.

 

[sublight_]

Because manufacturing in the US is shit. No way to sugarcoat it. The entire education system needs to be gutted as well as "the message". For decades now everybody has been told the trades and manufacturing is for losers so there would be less push back as it was all shipped overseas, or people brought in under the table to "do jobs Americans don't want to do". You need to pay a lot of money for a useless degree and become an "influencer" or "Youtuber". This isn't some "back in my day" shit, it's seeing people come into a job and you wonder how they tie their shoes in the morning. This is something that would take decades of concerted effort to correct and that just ain't in the cards with today's politics.

The message "manufacturing is for losers" wasn't to shame the workers into quitting, it was to convince them to take peanuts for compensation so the C suite jerkoffs could get a new Ferrari for their mistress of the week.

 

[Moose]

The message "manufacturing is for losers" wasn't to shame the workers into quitting, it was to convince them to take peanuts for compensation so the C suite jerkoffs could get a new Ferrari for their mistress of the week.

And when they didn't, the jobs were shipped overseas.

 

[insidersource]

From the article you posted above:

Where is this conclusion being drawn from when the second article explicitly stated the second review - for the X102 engine - was for the air force NGAP program and nothing else?

My conclusion is the first XA102 design review in December 2023 was for the 50,000lb thrust class engine to power the larger Lockheed NGAD design. This was called the "battlecruiser" by members on here and was an aircraft with a MTOW well above 100,000 lb. I assume this XA102 engine was similar in size to the XA100 but was optimised for the faster NGAD speed ranges.

The second XA102 design review in February 2025 was for a scaled down version of the engine in the 35,000lb to 40,000lb thrust range to fit the smaller Boeing 6th gen design. This Boeing design was originally developed for the Navy F/A-XX program. The USAF selected it and called it the F-47. The USAF swapped from the larger Lockheed design to smaller Boeing design in July to September last year.

I haven't seen anyone say the navy was interested in NGAP or that the AF was funding it for the Navy. I've only seen the opposite being said.

The USAF only recently selected the smaller F/A-XX design. Up until recently the Navy would have assumed they would been alone with an engine in that size range. The USAF has always been funding an adaptive engine for itself. The Navy has always assumed it could never fit the USAF adaptive engine but now it suddenly can.

 

[Sferrin]

The message "manufacturing is for losers" wasn't to shame the workers into quitting, it was to convince them to take peanuts for compensation so the C suite jerkoffs could get a new Ferrari for their mistress of the week.

I never said it was to shame them into quitting. It was to make people not want to pursue those fields in the first place.

 

[insidersource]

Funding F/A-XX could ‘delay’ F-47, White House warns Congress

I really don't see how they can make a statement like this

I have seen multiple people do not understand what they are saying. It says less delays overall.

The best way to explain this is to create a hypothetical example. The USAF is purchasing the F-47A and the Navy is purchasing the F-47B. Both are made by Boeing.

If Boeing develops both variants in parallel the USAF version might enter service in 5 years time and the Navy version in 6 years time.

If Boeing develops both variants in series and starts with the easier USAF version it might enter service in only 3 years time and the Navy version in 6 years time. In this situation the Navy version timeline isn't changed but the USAF version arrives early. This is what they are trying to say.

Such a situation only applies if both services are effectively buying the same aircraft design from the same manufacturer as the manufacturer has fixed resources. If the Navy was purchasing an aircraft from Northrop for example then common sense dictates that the sooner an aircraft is funded the sooner it arrives. This is why the wording all but confirms a common Boeing design will be used by both services.

 

[Sferrin]

I'm still not of the opinion that the F/A-XX is based on the F-47. If anything they cancelled the original NGAD, looked at F/A-XX and said, "how cheap could you make a land-based version". So another Sentinel / B-21 fiasco. Oh, goodie.

 

[bobbymike]

I never said it was to shame them into quitting. It was to make people not want to pursue those fields in the first place.

Like the nuclear enterprise.

“Hey you young nuclear physicist or engineer come work for the national labs like Los Alamos where the atomic bomb was invented but you’ll never ever get to design, work on or build a new weapon for your whole career”

“Umm no thanks”

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Like the nuclear enterprise.

“Hey you young nuclear physicist or engineer come work for the national labs like Los Alamos where the atomic bomb was invented but you’ll never ever get to design, work on or build a new weapon for your whole career”

“Umm no thanks”

honestly it has to do with the growing poverty in the USA and social problems like drug consumption, plus a horrible economic policy, it is obvious when people can not be treated in a hospital why build weapons?

 

[FlyGuy369]

Reflecting on the idea more that potentially one common platform has been selected, the F-47 we see may have canard cause of Boeing's tuck away canard were too cumbersome or perhaps expensive to use effectively, so they just opted in for a normal canard configuration.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This all but confirms that the USAF selected the F/A-XX demonstrator built by Boeing and that the US Navy has also selected the same design.

I find it very difficult to believe that the USAF would accept an aircraft designed for the Navy.

The US wants to develop the two variants in series rather than in parallel. This makes perfect sense as the air-to-ground capability and carrier parts can be considered additional to the USAF variant. All the flight testing and production ramp will move faster if they concentrate on the simpler USAF variant.

After the USAF variant starts low rate production development work can then concentrate on the Navy variant. The Navy variant then enters service on a similar timeline compared to if the development of both variants were done in parallel.

This is not like trying to make the F-22 design land on a carrier. The Boeing F/A-XX would have been designed from the start to be carrier capable. They will know with extreme confidence that the F-47 will need minimal changes to become carrier capable.

If the Navy is willing to accept a lower maneuvering limit than the USAF it might even work tolerably.

This is assuming the NGAD and FAXX airframes are identical except for FAXX having the full catapult nose gear and maybe heavier tailhook. Basically the early F-4 situation.

Because a plane that is doing no-flare landings at 300+fpm and then catching an arresting wire all the time is constantly getting beat up a lot more than a plane that occasionally goes blade-dancing for BFM.

So what you're telling me is the air force got the short end of the stick again for a compromised design made to be more compatible with the navy? Is this different from how the F4 was designed?

The F-4 was designed as a Navy plane and then got USAF missiles, radar, and radios installed when McNamara said "You're buying the F-4." That covers the USAF F-4Cs and -Ds. (Ironically, the -D is closer to the Navy -B model due to Sidewinder systems instead of the -C's Falcon missile systems) Then the lesson of Vietnam was that a fighter needed a gun so the nose was redesigned for the USAF based on the RF-4C's nose to produce the F-4E, at the cost of a smaller radar dish.

Not sure how similar they can be when they are going to have different engines

As I understand it, the Navy wanted to derisk the engine development. Adaptive engines needed a whole development cycle run, while something based off the F110 (and CFM56-7 or LEAP cores) would be a lot less development work. Basically just needing the new fan section done and then integration onto the core.

 

[Reddington777]

If anything they cancelled the original NGAD, looked at F/A-XX and said, "how cheap could you make a land-based version". So another Sentinel / B-21 fiasco. Oh, goodie.

larger Lockheed NGAD design

It seems across the board - be it submarines, surface combatants, or aircraft, all branches are going with the "smaller and smaller capacity" choice rather than monstrosities of anything. So in that respect, it's not surprising. We can write it off as "oh we can't afford to do anything anymore". Or it could be that its a deliberate choice to operate in a more distributed way. Of course the major fear factor and caveat to all that is we buy less and have less capacity.

I still wouldn't write off Boeing's fighter as the less capable option. The air force did say that lockmart's option was evolutionary compared to Boeing's more revolutionary design. If that wasn't a baldfaced lie, then there may well have been things that Boeing's option made up for in comparison for the big lockmart battlecruiser.

 

[Sferrin]

It seems across the board - be it submarines, surface combatants, or aircraft, all branches are going with the "smaller and smaller capacity" choice rather than monstrosities of anything. So in that respect, it's not surprising. We can write it off as "oh we can't afford to do anything anymore". Or it could be that its a deliberate choice to operate in a more distributed way. Of course the major fear factor and caveat to all that is we buy less and have less capacity.

I still wouldn't write off Boeing's fighter as the less capable option. The air force did say that lockmart's option was evolutionary compared to Boeing's more revolutionary design. If that wasn't a baldfaced lie, then there may well have been things that Boeing's option made up for in comparison for the big lockmart battlecruiser.

"Monstrosities"? I don't think anybody is suggesting that. Is the B-2 a "monstrosity"? The DF-41? The Ohios? This is a monstrosity:



Nobody is suggesting NGAD should be something like this. But stealthy.

 

[Josh_TN]

I'm still not of the opinion that the F/A-XX is based on the F-47. If anything they cancelled the original NGAD, looked at F/A-XX and said, "how cheap could you make a land-based version". So another Sentinel / B-21 fiasco. Oh, goodie.

How is B-21 a fiasco?

 

[Ozair]

My conclusion is the first XA102 design review in December 2023 was for the 50,000lb thrust class engine to power the larger Lockheed NGAD design. This was called the "battlecruiser" by members on here and was an aircraft with a MTOW well above 100,000 lb. I assume this XA102 engine was similar in size to the XA100 but was optimised for the faster NGAD speed ranges.

The second XA102 design review in February 2025 was for a scaled down version of the engine in the 35,000lb to 40,000lb thrust range to fit the smaller Boeing 6th gen design. This Boeing design was originally developed for the Navy F/A-XX program. The USAF selected it and called it the F-47. The USAF swapped from the larger Lockheed design to smaller Boeing design in July to September last year.


The USAF only recently selected the smaller F/A-XX design. Up until recently the Navy would have assumed they would been alone with an engine in that size range. The USAF has always been funding an adaptive engine for itself. The Navy has always assumed it could never fit the USAF adaptive engine but now it suddenly can.

No. The XA102 was always a scaled core to the XA100 and the intent all along has been to develop a smaller engine.

 

[MrTopaz]

I still wouldn't write off Boeing's fighter as the less capable option. The air force did say that lockmart's option was evolutionary compared to Boeing's more revolutionary design. If that wasn't a baldfaced lie, then there may well have been things that Boeing's option made up for in comparison for the big lockmart battlecruiser.

I am still surprised that NorthropGrumman's didn't make the cut. Not because we know its performance characteristics, because obviously we don't (although I have a hard time imagining it was genuinely terrible), but rather because it just seems like that would have been the sensible division of labor. Maybe it really was a dog, or production of the B-21 is that demanding.

 

[Ozair]

I am still surprised that NorthropGrumman's didn't make the cut. Not because we know its performance characteristics, because obviously we don't (although I have a hard time imagining it was genuinely terrible), but rather because it just seems like that would have been the sensible division of labor. Maybe it really was a dog, or production of the B-21 is that demanding.

It wasn't about making the cut, it was about fiscal sense.

However, Warden says Northrop does not feel another new development programme is the right strategic move.

“We are remaining disciplined in assessing the right programmes to pursue,” she notes. “Ones where we feel we’re well positioned with mature offerings, and where the business deal presents an appropriate balance of risk and reward.”

Northrop bows out of NGAD fighter competition

Chief executive Kathy Warden says the defence manufacturer, which is currently developing the next-generation B-21 stealth bomber, will not submit a prime bid for the US Air Force's sixth-generation fighter programme.

www.flightglobal.com

As for the background to that decision, maybe they viewed the competition as too high risk, assessed their offering wasn't as compelling or simply that it wouldn't offer the long term revenue that the company needed going forward. They could also have decided they could make more margin working for either of the remaining primes as a subcontractor as they do on the F-35.

If you think about the uniqueness of NGAD, with the US Govt owning the design IP and potentially budding out future production contracts away from the design prime, then it might not be the right contract to win going forward.

 

[insidersource]

No. The XA102 was always a scaled core to the XA100 and the intent all along has been to develop a smaller engine.

Actually this image proves my point.
The top engine is the direct upgrade for the F-35.

The middle engine is the same large F-35 "common core" with slightly reduced bypass to suit the large supercruising Lockheed NGAD. This is the XA102 engine that had the design review in December 2023.

The lower engine is the smaller "scaled core" which can suit designs based around the F119 or the F110 engine. This is the second XA102 that finished design review in February 2025. As the Navy planned for F/A-XX to use an existing engine most likely the F110. This scaled core adaptive engine can now fit the F/A-XX design to cover the USAF NGAD requirement.

 

[Ozair]

Actually this image proves my point.

No RJMAZ new account, you are simply interpreting it that way because you want it to prove your point.

 

[insidersource]

I find it very difficult to believe that the USAF would accept an aircraft designed for the Navy.

If the Navy is willing to accept a lower maneuvering limit than the USAF it might even work tolerably.

I would think both would have a similar maneuvering limit. If anything the USAF NGAD requirement requires higher levels of maneuvering as a F-22 replacement. The US Navy it is called F/A for fighter and attack. Attack wouldn't need the highest levels of agility.

Because a plane that is doing no-flare landings at 300+fpm and then catching an arresting wire all the time is constantly getting beat up a lot more than a plane that occasionally goes blade-dancing for BFM.

The Navy variant can get extra internal strengthening on top of the existing USAF variant. Mainly stronger landing gear.

The F-4 was designed as a Navy plane and then got USAF missiles, radar, and radios installed

What we have is a Navy demonstrator that still has lots of development work left. The demonstrator is more like the YF-17. The YF-17 could have turned into an uncompromised USAF fighter.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Maybe the USAF gets the long range variant of the Boeing offering for the Pacific (priority) and the USN/USAF get the short range variant for the European theater and carrier ops.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I would think both would have a similar maneuvering limit. If anything the USAF NGAD requirement requires higher levels of maneuvering as a F-22 replacement. The US Navy it is called F/A for fighter and attack. Attack wouldn't need the highest levels of agility.

Right. This is why I think the USN might spec the airframe to 7.5 gees while the USAF would want 9.

But since the Navy version also gets beat up a lot more in standard operations, it might work out that the same airframe could handle the higher g loads if it's not slamming into a carrier every landing.

The Navy variant can get extra internal strengthening on top of the existing USAF variant. Mainly stronger landing gear.

And landing gear box where the gear attaches to the airframe, probably a whole reinforced wing box.

What we have is a Navy demonstrator that still has lots of development work left. The demonstrator is more like the YF-17. The YF-17 could have turned into an uncompromised USAF fighter.

Excellently put!

 

[quellish]

I don't see why anything needs to be plug and play. Both USAF and US Navy requirements are pretty much identical.

...

My conclusion is the first XA102 design review in December 2023 was for the 50,000lb thrust class engine to power the larger Lockheed NGAD design. This was called the "battlecruiser" by members on here and was an aircraft with a MTOW well above 100,000 lb. I assume this XA102 engine was similar in size to the XA100 but was optimised for the faster NGAD speed ranges.

The second XA102 design review in February 2025 was for a scaled down version of the engine in the 35,000lb to 40,000lb thrust range to fit the smaller Boeing 6th gen design. This Boeing design was originally developed for the Navy F/A-XX program. The USAF selected it and called it the F-47. The USAF swapped from the larger Lockheed design to smaller Boeing design in July to September last year.


The USAF only recently selected the smaller F/A-XX design. Up until recently the Navy would have assumed they would been alone with an engine in that size range. The USAF has always been funding an adaptive engine for itself. The Navy has always assumed it could never fit the USAF adaptive engine but now it suddenly can.

There seems to be some confusion here.

The Aerospace Innovation Initiative X-plane demonstrators were just that - technology demonstrators. One design was for Navy requirements, the other for Air Force requirements - which were quite different even then. These were not in any way "prototypes" of F/A-XX and NGAD. This would be like saying TACIT BLUE was a "prototype" of the ATB.

Neither demonstrator was a "battlecruiser". They were very different from each other, and the Boeing demonstrator was very different from the F-47.

Both the Navy and Air Force requirements for their respective operational aircraft evolved from lessons learned during the AII-X flight test campaign. These requirements are now even more different. Both of those DoD components and DoD at large have conducted multiple analysis of alternatives to refine requirements and keep the programs on track.

The Navy was not interested in the new engine for multiple reasons. A Navy requirement that has not changed is that the engine must fit in the volume of the F135 engine. Otherwise they cannot get it aboard ship in a V-22, etc. The Navy has other valid reasons for not being interested in a new engine.

The Boeing AII-X aircraft met and exceeded the goals set by the Navy. It also demonstrated technologies that were of interest to the Air Force - on purpose, and some of these were considered high risk. Boeing was very aware that they could get the attention of the Air Force and still meet the goals set by the Navy.

The Lockheed AII-X did fly with an advanced engine... many months after the first flight of the Boeing aircraft.

Spoiler

Sources: A number of unclassified documents (including Navy and Air Force AoAs, AII technology transition plan, others) provided to me by the US government. Because of the methods by which they were given to me I am not at liberty to share them, and frankly even then still would not in public. Requests for the same documents using FOIA have resulted in various "no records found" and (b)(1) responses, without adequate explanation. Requests for records of the security review of the same documents resulted in "no records" responses, which should be impossible if DoD policy was being followed correctly.

A more complete response here would touch on political aspects of the program and contract award, which I am not comfortable doing. Mentioning anything even remotely related to politics will just cause everthing to turn into off topic name calling, etc.

The Air Force and Navy goals for AII-X were not identical, or even similar.

AII-X was a technology demonstration program, not a prototype for an operational aircraft.

The Air Force requirements for NGAD at contract award were not identical to the Navy requirements for F/A-XX, they were not even close.

 

[NMaude]

Requests for the same documents using FOIA have resulted in various "no records found" and (b)(1) responses

What exactly is a "(b)(1) response? (And for that matter a (b)(3) response)

On another note I wonder we'll see the public release of photographs of the Boeing and Lockheed-Martin F/A-XX and NGAD demonstrators?

 

[kmrumble]

What exactly is a "(b)(1) response? (And for that matter a (b)(3) response)

On another note I wonder we'll see the public release of photographs of the Boeing and Lockheed-Martin F/A-XX and NGAD demonstrators?

FOIA exemptions for classified information, and otherwise prohibited by law.

 

[Josh_TN]

...

There seems to be some confusion here.

That’s for your detailed information on the subject. It is appreciated.

EDIT: quote shortened for brevity.

 

[quellish]

What exactly is a "(b)(1) response? (And for that matter a (b)(3) response)

(b)(1):

Exemption 1 - FOIA.Wiki

foia.wiki

(b)(3):

Exemption 3 - FOIA.Wiki

foia.wiki

On another note I wonder we'll see the public release of photographs of the Boeing and Lockheed-Martin F/A-XX and NGAD demonstrators?

Could have been "exclusive to this forum" (until stolen) and posted months ago if there hadn't been so many crap political, etc. posts in the relevant threads.

Spoiler

Hypothetically, demonstrators were shown in unclassified conditions to uncleared persons, intentionally, and photos were allowed to be taken.

DoD is weird.

 

[insidersource]

There seems to be some confusion here.

The Aerospace Innovation Initiative X-plane demonstrators were just that - technology demonstrators. One design was for Navy requirements, the other for Air Force requirements - which were quite different even then. These were not in any way "prototypes" of F/A-XX and NGAD

The post you quoted from me I used the words "F/A-XX design" and "NGAD design". I intentionally avoiding using terms such as "prototype" or "demonstrator" as for some people these terms have different meanings.

The Navy was not interested in the new engine for multiple reasons. A Navy requirement that has not changed is that the engine must fit in the volume of the F135 engine. Otherwise they cannot get it aboard ship in a V-22, etc. The Navy has other valid reasons for not being interested in a new engine.

This reason is not true. The F/A-XX demonstrator is sized for GE F110 sized engines. An adaptive engine sized for this aircraft would be much smaller than the F135 engine and would easily fit inside the V-22. Size is not a reason. The added performance of an adaptive engine would allow for a smaller overall fighter with less internal fuel to satisfy the same performance requirement.

The only reasons the US Navy doesn't want an adaptive engine are cost related as they need 500+ aircraft.
1) Development cost of a scaled down version.
2) Purchase cost of the engine itself.
3) Maintenance cost.

The USAF is now funding the adaptive engine that is the correct size for the Navy. This eliminates the first reason.

If the USAF and the US Navy share the same adaptive engine the economy of scale will reduce the price per engine. This helps satisfy the second reason.

If the USAF shares the same adaptive engine they will have depots and spare parts around the world. This will reduce maintenance cost and helps satisfy the third reason.

The US Navy was not interested in an adaptive engine but with their important concerns mostly satisfied it will now be on the table.

The Boeing AII-X aircraft met and exceeded the goals set by the Navy. It also demonstrated technologies that were of interest to the Air Force -

The Air Force would also have seen the Navy demonstrator with conventional engines and instantly seen the potential if the design had a suitable sized adaptive engine. The performance numbers could then be accurately estimated. This change allowed the Boeing design to win the NGAD contract.

The Lockheed AII-X did fly with an advanced engine... many months after the first flight of the Boeing aircraft.

The only advanced engine was the XA100 and XA101. The XA100 engine first ran in December 2020. The larger Lockheed NGAD demonstrator most likely would have used the F135 or XA100

The smaller Boeing F/A-XX demonstrator had no advanced engine that would fit.

The Air Force requirements for NGAD at contract award were not identical to the Navy requirements for F/A-XX, they were not even close.

F/A-XX obviously has air-to-ground capability requirement and needs to fit on a carrier. The requirement is clearly not identical. We were talking performance requirements and the weapon bay capacity. These aspects are pretty much identical.

Stealth, Turn rate, acceleration, combat radius and internal weapon bay capacity. These aspects are built into the design and are hard to change. Adding air-to-ground weapons can be applied to almost any design.

 

[Sferrin]

Could have been "exclusive to this forum" (until stolen) and posted months ago if there hadn't been so many crap political, etc. posts in the relevant threads.

Spoiler

Hypothetically, demonstrators were shown in unclassified conditions to uncleared persons, intentionally, and photos were allowed to be taken.

DoD is weird.

Maybe put them in the "Senior" section? (Though I don't know that would prevent them from being stolen to be honest.)

 

[Hull down]

...



There seems to be some confusion here.

The Aerospace Innovation Initiative X-plane demonstrators were just that - technology demonstrators. One design was for Navy requirements, the other for Air Force requirements - which were quite different even then. These were not in any way "prototypes" of F/A-XX and NGAD. This would be like saying TACIT BLUE was a "prototype" of the ATB.

Neither demonstrator was a "battlecruiser". They were very different from each other, and the Boeing demonstrator was very different from the F-47.

Both the Navy and Air Force requirements for their respective operational aircraft evolved from lessons learned during the AII-X flight test campaign. These requirements are now even more different. Both of those DoD components and DoD at large have conducted multiple analysis of alternatives to refine requirements and keep the programs on track.

The Navy was not interested in the new engine for multiple reasons. A Navy requirement that has not changed is that the engine must fit in the volume of the F135 engine. Otherwise they cannot get it aboard ship in a V-22, etc. The Navy has other valid reasons for not being interested in a new engine.

The Boeing AII-X aircraft met and exceeded the goals set by the Navy. It also demonstrated technologies that were of interest to the Air Force - on purpose, and some of these were considered high risk. Boeing was very aware that they could get the attention of the Air Force and still meet the goals set by the Navy.

The Lockheed AII-X did fly with an advanced engine... many months after the first flight of the Boeing aircraft.

Spoiler

Sources: A number of unclassified documents (including Navy and Air Force AoAs, AII technology transition plan, others) provided to me by the US government. Because of the methods by which they were given to me I am not at liberty to share them, and frankly even then still would not in public. Requests for the same documents using FOIA have resulted in various "no records found" and (b)(1) responses, without adequate explanation. Requests for records of the security review of the same documents resulted in "no records" responses, which should be impossible if DoD policy was being followed correctly.

A more complete response here would touch on political aspects of the program and contract award, which I am not comfortable doing. Mentioning anything even remotely related to politics will just cause everthing to turn into off topic name calling, etc.

The Air Force and Navy goals for AII-X were not identical, or even similar.

AII-X was a technology demonstration program, not a prototype for an operational aircraft.

The Air Force requirements for NGAD at contract award were not identical to the Navy requirements for F/A-XX, they were not even close.

How did you “obtain” these documents if it wasn’t through FOIA? And if its all unclass, what exactly puts you “not at liberty” to share them?

 

[quellish]

The post you quoted from me I used the words "F/A-XX design" and "NGAD design". I intentionally avoiding using terms such as "prototype" or "demonstrator" as for some people these terms have different meanings.

You keep saying "demonstrator", but your statements refer to prototype or operational requirements.

This reason is not true. The F/A-XX demonstrator is sized for GE F110 sized engines. An adaptive engine sized for this aircraft would be much smaller than the F135 engine and would easily fit inside the V-22. Size is not a reason. The added performance of an adaptive engine would allow for a smaller overall fighter with less internal fuel to satisfy the same performance requirement.

No.

And what F/A-XX demonstrator are you referring to here?

The Air Force would also have seen the Navy demonstrator with conventional engines and instantly seen the potential if the design had a suitable sized adaptive engine. The performance numbers could then be accurately estimated. This change allowed the Boeing design to win the NGAD contract.

No, the Boeing demonstrator had little relation to their NGAD proposal, and their F/A-XX proposal. The Boeing demonstrator validated the maturity of key technologies to further Navy goals. Again, it was a technology demonstrator.

The only advanced engine was the XA100 and XA101. The XA100 engine first ran in December 2020. The larger Lockheed NGAD demonstrator most likely would have used the F135 or XA100

This is not correct. There were other engines. The Lockheed demonstrator, which was not "large", flew with one of those engines (well, two).

F/A-XX obviously has air-to-ground capability requirement and needs to fit on a carrier. The requirement is clearly not identical. We were talking performance requirements and the weapon bay capacity. These aspects are pretty much identical.

Stealth, Turn rate, acceleration, combat radius and internal weapon bay capacity. These aspects are built into the design and are hard to change. Adding air-to-ground weapons can be applied to almost any design.

The weapons bay requirements are not identical today, and were not during the AII-X demonstration program. The AII-X demonstrators had no need at all for a weapons bay there was a specific goal associated with weapons deployment (such as demonstrating a novel supersonic weapon deployment concept). Both the Lockheed and Boeing AII-X demonstrators were "missing" weapons bays. There is a story there.

Spoiler

The Air Force made demonstrating cooling capacity and power generation as very important goals for AII-X in 2014/2015. The Navy did not.

 

[quellish]

And if its all unclass, what exactly puts you “not at liberty” to share them?

What, what I do, or do not post is at my own discretion.

And I don't appreciate when I do post things of that nature which are then used without attribution or compensation by commercial interests. Fuckfaces like "The War Zone" and "Sandboxx". Those two regularly take content from SPF and, effectively, sell it as their own work.

 

[Hull down]

What, what I do, or do not post is at my own discretion.

And I don't appreciate when I do post things of that nature which are then used without attribution or compensation by commercial interests. Fuckfaces like "The War Zone" and "Sandboxx". Those two regularly take content from SPF and, effectively, sell it as their own work.

Right, but what is preventing you from watermarking them or uploading them to a platform of your own? Claiming to have images of classified demonstrator aircraft seems outrageous.

And on a side note, Im still curious as to how you managed to obtain these documents and images, if not through a FOIA.