USAF/US NAVY 6G Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

[Sundog]

Maybe after all this concept from LM is not so pure; Here is a 2013 patent from LM for a inside nozzle thrust vectoring system. F-23 style again!
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8371104.pdf

The patent you reference, itself references the YF-23, B-2, and one of the early ATF concepts from the mid 80's Northrop was studying. Look at the Patent reference numbers with the "D"" in front of them. Those are the patents for specific aircraft "Designs." i.e., the D in the patent number represents the word Design.

Also, IIRC, when Lockheed "won" the ATF competition, it was my understanding that many of the engineers that were let go by Northrop as a result went to Lockheed Martin, and that may be part of the reason you see this; or just that it was better aerodynamically. It could also be that the layout references an advanced aerodynamic layout, without giving away what they might actually be working on.

 

[gtg947h]

Speaking as an engineer who has done just that (minus the youtube part), I could certainly believe it.

Cool. So which part do you believe? That they made the model as part of a 6 Genfighter configuration study and the 3D printer was just the latest tool to visualise the design? Or that it was a more to demonstrate their 3D printer and the engineer who made the CAD model, designed it solely for that purpose?

That they paid a full-time engineer to convert an artist's concept (or simplified model of one of their early design iterations) into a printable 3D format so it could decorate some manager's desk. Whether the model has any real engineering behind its shape, or it's just a conceptual sketch, I couldn't tell you (but I'd suspect the latter).

 

[dark sidius]

The plane on the patent look like the 6th gen fighter concept of Lockheed.

 

[dark sidius]

Frank Kendall says to Aviation week despite budget pressure than a new X-plane, is on the way and Darpa who lead the prtotype, very good news.

 

[bobbymike]

Frank Kendall says to Aviation week despite budget pressure than a new X-plane, is on the way and Darpa who lead the prtotype, very good news.

Yes posted here;
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,18595.0.html

 

[fightingirish]

Boeing reveals updated F/A-XX concept B)
Link: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/04/boeing-reveals-updated-fa-xx-c.html

Don't like the canards so far, I prefer a V-tail instead.



Edit1: Picture attached in half the size (600x380).

 

[Blitzo]

A tailless J-20!

 

[BDF]

Very interesting. It would seem, that if this artwork has validity towards what the USN RFI is asking for, the USN's signature requirements are less than what the USAF's will supposedly be for their F-X program. While this concept doesn't have vertical stabs, it does have conventional inlets and presumably the canards are not compatible with VLO in the lower bands (L and VHF). It also doesn't appear to have a nearly flat bottom which is, again purportedly, not optimal with VLO is those lower bands. Very cool concept though.

 

[sferrin]

A tailless J-20!

Why, because it's got two engines?

 

[kcran567]

the dihedral to the canards, the delta far back on a boxy fuselage. Remove the vertical tails from a J-20 and paint it grey and the Boeing 6th looks very much like a J-20.

I'm surprised that they (Boeing) are finally needing a canard for agility? Is it a concession that it is a superior layout, or simply disinformation like early ATF artwork? I doubt the canard will actually show up.

 

[Blitzo]

A tailless J-20!

Why, because it's got two engines?

Haha I was playing on the crowd that said J-20 or T-50 looked like F-22 because of X and Y reasons etc...


The wider spaced engines of this redesigned FA-XX art is YF-23 esque though. But the presence of canards is very interesting. It may well be disinformation on Boeing's part, similar to the initial ATF drawings (which showed planes not too dissimilar to J-20's eventual configuration.




But if this is indeed a tested evolution of the initial V tailless/canardless FA-XX layout, the only reason I suspect they would have added this extra control surface was agility, to put it bluntly. May say a little bit (or nothing) on why or why not they didn't add tails instead to give them a tailless F-22 instead.

 

[sferrin]

the dihedral to the canards, the delta far back on a boxy fuselage. Remove the vertical tails from a J-20 and paint it grey and the Boeing 6th looks very much like a J-20.

I'm surprised that they (Boeing) are finally needing a canard for agility? Is it a concession that it is a superior layout, or simply disinformation like early ATF artwork? I doubt the canard will actually show up.

Aside from both having two engines the two look nothing alike. But the two up on the same screen and I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[Sundog]

Aside from both having two engines the two look nothing alike. But the two up on the same screen and I'm sure you'll agree.

It has a canard and DSI inlets. Therefore by default, they look alike to some who haven't seen many canard configurations. This design reminds me more of the STOL fighter designs from the late 70's/early 80's by GD and Grumman, but without the vertical tails and added LO features.

 

[lantinian]

IMHO Boeing's canard configuration is just a result of the same process that produced the canard NATF-23.

We've had this discussion before but because of their placement in front of the lift vector,canards are generally much smaller than the V tail required to produce the same control moment.

Canards also fit into the general body length of the aircraft so canard only fighters are much shorter than V tail ones and hence much easier to fit on a carrier. This explains why pretty much all concepts for future carrier fighters have generally been a canard configurations.

I agree that while some frontal RCS is sacrificed, its traded for much better rear aspect one, which is probably now a requirement. I do wander on how would they shield the engine faces in these short inlets ducs since in this respect, this design would appear to share the T-50 PAK FA engine/weapons configuration arrangement.

 

[Blitzo]

I think the engine/inlet configuration isn't T-50 so much as J-20/JSF and YF-23. It looks relatively unchanged from the last iteration of their FA-XX proposal.

 

[lantinian]

Not quite. The two engines are now widely spaced apart allowing for 2 larger/longer weapons bays to be placed between them just like on T-50 and the production F-23A

Canards help retain the same pitch control authority as before without increasing the design overall length.

Remember that Boing got into the same problem in the 90's trying to pitch an almost pure tailless delta for the JSF, only to have to figure out how to add more control authority later to the final design.

 

[fightingirish]

I remember vaguely, that during the JSF selection the USN didn't support canards for carrier operations.

 

[lantinian]

I was referring to JAST studies preceding the JSF. Most of the designs there featured canards.
I didn't know the JSF program office specifically ruled out canard design option

Boeing's final JSF submission had additional horizontal tails for added control on approach to the carrier.

I'm also looking into NASA report from 1996 titled "Investigation Into the Impact of Agility in Conceptual Fighter Design" where Boeing own study show a X-36 like design as a solution to a multipolar aircraft with reduced LO and high agility.

 

[lantinian]

Here is the info on the Boeing design I was referring to. There are detailed technical stats available for this aircraft. This was (can't get it any more) from a publicly available document and was published in 1996

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960000737_1996900737.pdf


6.3 Multi-Role Concepts Model 988-119, High Agility, Moderate Observables

The high agility, moderate observables vehicle, Model 988-119, is a single place tail-less transdnic design powered by two afterburning low-bypass turbofans of 28500 pounds (augmented) thrust each. It is capable over Mach 1.5 on augmented engine thrust. Reduced signature characteristics include moderate side slope angles, edge alignment, lack of any vertical tail surfaces, and inlets integrated into the wing-body junction.


The modified trapezoid planform was chosen to allow a higher aspect ratio without excessively narrow tip chords. Placement of the wing on the body for proper balance required the use of a canard instead of a conventional horizontal tail. Inlets are F-22 type, with angles chosen to align with the trailing edge while meeting side slope and inlet ramp angle requirements. Placement at the wing-body junction results in the intake duct passing alongside rather than over the weapons bay. Yaw vectoring exhaust nozzles are located in the aft fuselage.

Control effectors include those on the trailing edge of the wing, the canards, the yaw vectoring nozzles, "yaw vanes" forming the forward part of the nozzle fairings, and aft body flaps to provide thrust vectoring in pitch. There are large leading edge slats to enhance maneuvering. The mid- outboard elevons are split to act as drag rudders.


The canards require high deflection capability to allow for effectiveness in high-Alpha maneuvers. They have 10 degrees of dihedral to reduce interference with the wing and inlets.


The interior layout, as shown by the Inboard Profile (ASC988-119-2) is conventional for tactical aircraft, with the exception of the internal weapons bay (side-by-side bombs/missiles) and exhaust nozzlearrangement. The fuel is contained in integral wing tanks, and a protected tank above the weapons bay.

The exhaust system includes full augmentation, and dual rotating nozzles with variable throat and exit plane areas; this is an alternate nozzle arrangment from the single rotating nozzles shown on the other configurations. It appears to offer reduced flow-turning losses and improved aft-body integration. It also offers better pitch vectoring effectiveness (with the vectoring flap located between the nozzles), along with more flexibility for simultaneous yaw and pitch vectoring through differential pivoting of the upper and lower nozzles. There is not as much duct offset, but this is acceptable for a moderate observables aircraft. Achieving acceptable efficiencies and effective vectoring is a significant technical risk (see Section 7.0).

There are a few other configurations that were studied too.

 

[lantinian]

And the Air to Air one...again, this is 1996 stuff : but seams close in design to the latest Boeing FA-XX artist drawing.

6.2 Air Superiority Concepts Model 988-115, High Agility - Moderate Observables
The high agility, moderate observables vehicle, Model 988-115, is a single place, three-surface supersonic design powered by two turbojet engines of 33,660 pounds augmented thrust e_ch. Externally the vehicle general arrangement, shown on drawing ASC 988-115-1, includes a lifting canard or foreplane ahead of the main wing and a horizontaltail aft of main wing. Each surface (wing/canard/tail), is of identical planform with forty (40) degrees leading edge sweep. The canard and tail are identical plan areas and the canard is set at +10 degrees dihedral, with the wing and tail set at -5 degrees relative to the horizontal reference plane. Inlets are integrated/nested with the lower forebody, inboard of canard deflection path. Exhaust nozzles are located side-by-side on the upper aft fuselage and Yaw Vane pairs are integrated with the nozzles and on the lower aft body. Control effectors include the yaw thrust vectoring exhaust nozzles, with _+40degrees of deflection, the Yaw Vane pairs above and below aft fuselage, and main wing trailing edge plain flaps, in addition to the canard and horizontaltail. Initial sizing optimizations for the high agility metric conditions resulted in main wing size and aspect ratio which established overall span at a size that was considered impractical to achieve in a high agility fighter. The approach taken was to extract the equivalent horizontal tail exposed area from the theoretical main wing and incorporate a lifting canard/foreplane. This arrangement replicates that currently in use on the F-15/SMTD research vehicle.

The interior layout, shown on inboard profile drawing ASC 988-115-2, accommodates the crew, subsystem, weapons and propulsion system volume allocations within a low profile body shape. The forebody is conventional in arrangement and includes avionics, crew station, gun system, and avionics subsystem. Center body contents are main fuel tanks, inlet system, weapons bay, and main landing gear. The aft body provides engine and exhaust system accommodation. Propulsion system installation features consist of the nested external compression fixed ramp inlet, long vertical offset inlet diffuser running over the weapons bay to engine face.

The exhaust system includes augmentor spray bars, fully offset duct to nozzle exit plane. The duct turns through a circular bearing/rotation plane to direct exhaust gas out the nozzle aperture. A significant and challenging risk issue is presented here in this concept of making the rotating nozzle system augmentor capable. A discussion of this issue is contained in Section 7.0, Areas of High Technical Risk. Nozzle concept is that of a variable throat SERN type that utilizes the upper aft deck as the expansion surface. Fuel tankage in the main wing panel is integral and center section tankage contains fuel in conventional bladder cells.

 

[lantinian]

A few other screenshots from the study to give a more general overview and a comparison between the different configurations and existing aircraft in service.

The purpose of the current phase of study is to conduct configuration design studies to determine the impact of varying levels of agility requirements on a wide spectrum of potential aircraft and missions. Lockheed has investigated the impact of agility requirements on an existing airframe in the fulfillment of a multirole fighter mission. McDonnell-Douglas has investigated new designs in the fulfillment of the same multi-role fighter mission. This contract report addresss the effects of customer requirements (NAVY Vs Air Force) and aircraft mission role (Air Superiority, Multi-Role, and Air Interdiction) on agility design decisions. The study process is presented in figure 1.3.

The requirements for the aircraft designs are presented in section 2.0. The concepts presented here are intended to be representative of high end, next-generation replacements to the A-6 Air

Interdiction and F-15/F-14 Air Superiority aircraft. The Multi-Role concepts represent a compromise design between the dedicated Air-Superiority designs and the dedicated Air-Interdiction designs. In addition to mission role, the impact of customer requirements (primarily carrier suitability) and observably levels were used to develop the matrix of configurations studied and presented in figure 1.4.

While links to this study have been posted before in this forum http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2121.65, the PDF is no longer publicly available (maybe NSA thought the info could be really useful to Chinese aerospace industry : ), and the information in it seamed especially relevant to this topic which is why I repost it here. Hats off to flateric for keeping those pdfs

 

[sferrin]

While links to this study have been posted before in this forum http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2121.65, the PDF is no longer publicly available

What's the name/number of the original doc and I'll see if I have it when I get home. If I do I'll upload it.

 

[lantinian]

Original name of the file was 19960000737_1996900737 and you can download it from here


https://www.dropbox.com/s/kzobixj4rj2im3i/19960000737_1996900737.pdf


B)

 

[Triton]

Interesting how the F/A-XX concept has gone from a two crew tandem seating arrangement to a single seat. Does this mean that the F/A-XX will also not have a seat for a Naval Flight Officer (NFO) as in the F-35C?

 

[Sundog]

I do wander on how would they shield the engine faces in these short inlets ducs since in this respect, this design would appear to share the T-50 PAK FA engine/weapons configuration arrangement.

Indeed, it undoubtedly uses a fan blocker, which seems to me to be the lower weight solution, as opposed to S-ducts.

 

[Triton]

The complete article found by fightingirish:

"Boeing reveals updated F/A-XX concept"

By Dave Majumdar
on April 7, 2013

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/04/boeing-reveals-updated-fa-xx-c.html

Boeing is unveiling an updated version of its F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter concept at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space Exposition in Washington DC this week.

The tail-less twin-engine stealth fighter design comes in "manned and unmanned options as possibilities per the US Navy," Boeing says. The design features diverterless supersonic inlets reminiscent of those found on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. New FA-XX-1200.jpg

The Boeing concept also features canards, which is somewhat of a surprise because the motion of those forward mounted control surfaces is generally assumed to compromise a stealth aircraft's frontal radar cross-section. But the lack of vertical tail surfaces suggests the aircraft would be optimized for all-aspect broadband stealth, which would be needed for operations in the most challenging anti-access/area denial environments.

Also of note in the manned version of the company's F/A-XX concept is the placement of the cockpit--rearward visibility appears to be restricted without the aid of a sensor apparatus similar to the F-35's distributed aperture system of six infrared cameras.

The Boeing F/A-XX concept is a response to a USN request for information (RFI) from April 2012 soliciting data for a replacement for the service's Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler fleets in the 2030s. The Super Hornet fleet is expected to start reaching the end of the jet's 9000h useful lifespan during that time period.

"The intent of this research is to solicit Industry inputs on candidate solutions for CVN [nuclear-powered aircraft carrier] based aircraft to provide air supremacy with a multi-role strike capability in an anti-access/area denied (A2AD) operational environment," the navy RFI had stated. "Primary missions include, but are not limited to, air warfare (AW), strike warfare (STW), surface warfare (SUW), and close air support (CAS)."

Navy leaders had said at the time that they expect any new F/A-XX design to have greatly increased range and offer far superior kinematic performance compared to existing tactical aircraft.

 

[kcran567]

Looks like the Navy got a look at the J-20 and the Pakfa compared to the F-35 and SuperHornet and got jealous. We want a big comfortable canard delta like the J-20 and with lots of weapons space between the nacelles like the T-50. I honestly think this is what happened. Definitely a nice looking aircraft, above the J-20 and T-50 on looks.
Was not expecting a canard design. I think the J-20 and T-50 is a big influence on this design, regardless of what others are saying to the contrary.

 

[flateric]

If we see another F-A/XX concept published, what does it mean? Yes, it has been dropped out of selection of current/final iteration...

 

[sferrin]

Looks like the Navy got a look at the J-20 and the Pakfa compared to the F-35 and SuperHornet and got jealous. We want a big comfortable canard delta like the J-20 and with lots of weapons space between the nacelles like the T-50. I honestly think this is what happened. Definitely a nice looking aircraft, above the J-20 and T-50 on looks.
Was not expecting a canard design. I think the J-20 and T-50 is a big influence on this design, regardless of what others are saying to the contrary.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion.

 

[Triton]

Was the canard added to the design for lower speed in carrier landings instead of making the design a variable-sweep wing,"swing wing", as in the Lockheed/Boeing A/F-X design (AFX-635) and the added weight of the swing mechanism? Would the original F/A-XX design have performed adequately at the lower speeds required for carrier landings?

 

[sferrin]

Was the canard added to the design for lower speed in carrier landings instead of making the design a variable-sweep wing,"swing wing", as in the Lockheed/Boeing A/F-X design (AFX-635) and the added weight of the swing mechanism? Would the original F/A-XX design have performed adequately at the lower speeds required for carrier landings?

My guess would be that those giant intakes behind the cockpit (as well as the giant bubble the fuselage formed there) would have provided a lot of lift but a huge amount of drag.

 

[2IDSGT]

Hmm, look at that cockpit design. Now, what was that pilot's comment about the F-35's rear visibility that everyone was milking the other day?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Looks like the Navy got a look at the J-20 and the Pakfa compared to the F-35 and SuperHornet and got jealous. We want a big comfortable canard delta like the J-20 and with lots of weapons space between the nacelles like the T-50. I honestly think this is what happened. Definitely a nice looking aircraft, above the J-20 and T-50 on looks.
Was not expecting a canard design. I think the J-20 and T-50 is a big influence on this design, regardless of what others are saying to the contrary.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion.

"to me it looks like a T-50 and J-20, but its just some concept art that is most likely barely Representative of the real idea" would have sufficed.

OTOH we know how "jealous" the USN can be. I am a Marine, I experience it first hand.

 

[flateric]

Hmm, look at that cockpit design. Now, what was that pilot's comment about the F-35's rear visibility that everyone was milking the other day?

I don't think Navy has owls as pilots, otherwise judging of man pilot head position and enormous size of transparency, visibility is excellent.

 

[Triton]

I don't think Navy has owls as pilots, otherwise judging of man pilot head position and enormous size of transparency, visibility is excellent.

I imagine we can also presume that the Boeing F/A-XX will have a distributed aperture system of six infrared cameras and a helmet similar to the VSI Helmet-Mounted Display System (HMDS).

 

[Steve Pace]

Original name of the file was 19960000737_1996900737 and you can download it from here


https://www.dropbox.com/s/kzobixj4rj2im3i/19960000737_1996900737.pdf


B)

The link takes me to Dropbox but it won't download for me... -SP

 

[chuck4]

Looks like the Navy got a look at the J-20 and the Pakfa compared to the F-35 and SuperHornet and got jealous. We want a big comfortable canard delta like the J-20 and with lots of weapons space between the nacelles like the T-50. I honestly think this is what happened. Definitely a nice looking aircraft, above the J-20 and T-50 on looks.
Was not expecting a canard design. I think the J-20 and T-50 is a big influence on this design, regardless of what others are saying to the contrary.

The artwork may well have taken something from J-20 and T-50, and then worked them over with a beautification tool. It also seems to me to have taken and blended in quite a bit from F-22, F-23 and Northrop NATF designs. But this is at least 10 years before first metal is cut. Compare concept artwork 10 years before F-15 and F-22 flew and see how much they resemble the final products.

 

[chuck4]

Hmm, look at that cockpit design. Now, what was that pilot's comment about the F-35's rear visibility that everyone was milking the other day?

I don't think Navy has owls as pilots, otherwise judging of man pilot head position and enormous size of transparency, visibility is excellent.

It's not the size of the transparency that matters. A tiny transparency the shape of a fishbowl and only a little larger than the pilot's helmeted head would offer visibility unsurpassable by transparency of any size. The F-35 has very big transparencies whose size is probably dictated more by the need to fit into the aircraft's overall stealth shape factor than visibility, but nonetheless offer less than ideal visibility. The same seem to apply here.

 

[sferrin]

The artwork may well have taken something from a Klingon Bird of Prey and Romulan Warbird, and then worked them over with a beautification tool. It also seems to me to have taken and blended in quite a bit from X-Wing, Viper and Starship Trooper designs. But this is at least 10 years before first metal is cut. Compare concept artwork 10 years before F-15 and F-22 flew and see how much they resemble the final products.

Approximately as likely.

 

[ikke666]

where can i download the navy rfi for the f/a-xx? :