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

apparition13 said:
I still think NG pulling out is a bad sign, like deliberate non-compliance on the A-12 was. A sign that the performance and cost requirements don't match up. Of course they may have also seen that what they had wasn't going to win, so they might as well cut their losses.

I really can't see Lockheed getting it given their F-35 production issues. Of course I could say the same for Boeing, which is another reason why I think NG dropping out is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
I think they replicating the f-35 approach. As shoed in partner to whoever won, they became a big part of the program, significantly involved in signatures management, sensors work as well as building a big section of each aircraft.

With their head start in the b-21 development, any winning team of the NGAD will ask northrop to join. This would secure them work for both future fighter program and bomber program on top of continual f-35 work. With this move, they are but assured to be heavily involved in all of USAF major aircraft development/production in the forseeable future.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Okay, so your super-rocket is still 2-3ft long (using whatever propellant mix is in the Cuda/HalfRAAM.)

How many of those is your not-more-than-14ft-long recoverable loitering munition going to carry?
Click to expand...
Scott Kenny said:
Okay, so your super-rocket is still 2-3ft long (using whatever propellant mix is in the Cuda/HalfRAAM.)

How many of those is your not-more-than-14ft-long recoverable loitering munition going to carry?
Click to expand...
TBD, material science and intent will define. How is a final NGAD bay finally defined. "A" model may not be "B" model. Un (CCA)/manned (NGAD) craft require standoff KE solutions like an unmanned daughter for mother to survive & return to the hunt. Close in Defenses & even APS must be overcome.
 
jsport said:
TBD, material science and intent will define. How is a final NGAD bay finally defined. "A" model may not be "B" model. Un (CCA)/manned (NGAD) craft require standoff KE solutions like an unmanned daughter for mother to survive & return to the hunt. Close in Defenses & even APS must be overcome.
Click to expand...
So you're just waving your hands again.

Noted.
 
No, simply other answer makes sense..glad much of NGAD design will remain classified as many dont know what they are talking about.

Noted
 
What will be the main differences between the variable cycle engines and the current engines that power the fourth and fifth generation fighters?
 
dark sidius said:
Lockheed martin picture look a lot like the BAE Tempest?
Click to expand...
I don't particularly believe it's Lockmart, but Boeing. Here's another reference photo, notice the intake and wing platform are similar to the phantom works render, the main difference I see is one concept has annular nozzles and the other the more familiar LO nozzle. I would love to discuss the lift augmentation cited in the Boeing patent as well. There's your "fresh approach".
 

Attachments

  • 152112-6af4728b5582d38b0b4a7594df7dc36e.jpg
    152112-6af4728b5582d38b0b4a7594df7dc36e.jpg
    16.7 KB · Views: 194
  • mpv-shot0102.jpg
    mpv-shot0102.jpg
    141.7 KB · Views: 169
  • mpv-shot0100.jpg
    mpv-shot0100.jpg
    143.7 KB · Views: 138
  • mpv-shot0099.jpg
    mpv-shot0099.jpg
    145.7 KB · Views: 142
  • NGAD2.jpg
    NGAD2.jpg
    11.1 KB · Views: 140
  • LM F-X.jpg
    LM F-X.jpg
    261.2 KB · Views: 135
  • US20180170526A1-20180621-D00013.png
    US20180170526A1-20180621-D00013.png
    44.6 KB · Views: 149
What does the lift augment consist of and what is the suspected purpose?
 
Josh_TN said:
What does the lift augment consist of and what is the suspected purpose?
Click to expand...
The patent describes the use of passive porosity lessons to created attached flow over delta wing surfaces at slower speeds to improve handling qualities, the holes are to eject air to help attach that flow (red), pay close attention to the use of nose actuated strakes (green). More info on it can be found in the ACWFT studies conducted by mcdonnell douglas (now boeing) from the 90's. Another key area to look at that I seen on the patent sketches is that the segment in the image I highlighted also appears to be an all moving wingtip like the ICE studies, notice it's attachment area is parallel to the leading edge on the opposing wing (yellow and blue). An all flying wingtip coupled with leading edge flow effectors would change the game on delta wings. I am taking a gamble here at this statement as well, I know top mounted air intakes can be a big issue at high alpha, maybe the flow effectors are used there too?
 

Attachments

  • US20180170526A1-20180621-D00013.png
    US20180170526A1-20180621-D00013.png
    497 KB · Views: 129
  • NASA-F-18-HARV-with-active-strakes-Courtesy-of-NASA-Dryden-Flight-Research-Center-65.ppm.png
    NASA-F-18-HARV-with-active-strakes-Courtesy-of-NASA-Dryden-Flight-Research-Center-65.ppm.png
    554.4 KB · Views: 142
  • Screenshot_20240526_101146_Microsoft 365 (Office).jpg
    Screenshot_20240526_101146_Microsoft 365 (Office).jpg
    235 KB · Views: 136
  • Screenshot_20240526_101206_Microsoft 365 (Office).jpg
    Screenshot_20240526_101206_Microsoft 365 (Office).jpg
    126.1 KB · Views: 136
specializedoptions1@gmail said:
The patent describes the use of passive porosity lessons to created attached flow over delta wing surfaces at slower speeds to improve handling qualities, the holes are to eject air to help attach that flow (red), pay close attention to the use of nose actuated strakes (green). More info on it can be found in the ACWFT studies conducted by mcdonnell douglas (now boeing) from the 90's. Another key area to look at that I seen on the patent sketches is that the segment in the image I highlighted also appears to be an all moving wingtip like the ICE studies, notice it's attachment area is parallel to the leading edge on the opposing wing (yellow and blue). An all flying wingtip coupled with leading edge flow effectors would change the game on delta wings. I am taking a gamble here at this statement as well, I know top mounted air intakes can be a big issue at high alpha, maybe the flow effectors are used there too?
Click to expand...
May be this is why USAF speak about a more fresher approach for Boeing....
 
dark sidius said:
Same planform...
View attachment 730065
Click to expand...
I own that patch! Speaking of history and the future, funny that there's a Voodoo II patch when the original voodoo was made by Mcdonnell, maybe the Boeing submission will be called the Voodoo II, pays homage to the larger research used to develop the aircraft and the all too familiar Lambda wing. The silhouette bears a striking resemblance to the ACWFT derivative Concept 2406
 

Attachments

  • patch.png
    patch.png
    299.4 KB · Views: 123
  • 2406 - 16A small (1).jpg
    2406 - 16A small (1).jpg
    164.6 KB · Views: 131
  • 2406.jpg
    2406.jpg
    52.7 KB · Views: 122
  • acwft.jpg
    acwft.jpg
    87.7 KB · Views: 119
Last edited:
specializedoptions1@gmail said:
I own that patch! Speaking of history and the future, funny that there's a Voodoo II patch when the original voodoo was made by Mcdonnell, maybe the Boeing submission will be called the Voodoo II, pays homage to the larger research used to develop the aircraft and the all too familiar Lambda wing. The silhouette bears a striking resemblance to the ACWFT derivative Concept 2406
Click to expand...
Never see this planform before
 
Interesting text from a Northrop Grumman patent regarding a fixed geometry nozzle capable of subsonic, sonic, and supersonic speeds, eludes to the potential use of the XA series of next gen engines for 6th gen fighter aircraft, and quote, "Almost all nozzles have a convergent section because it increases the pressure in the rest of the engine-potentially yielding more thrust by acting on the forward sections. It is important to note that convergent nozzles end with this convergent section, and in general, narrower convergent nozzles give lower thrust and higher exhaust speed, but wider convergent nozzles give lower exhaust speed and higher thrust". Placing specific emphasis on the segment regarding yielding more thrust by acting on forward sections.
 

Attachments

  • US09009966-20150421-D00002.png
    US09009966-20150421-D00002.png
    20.4 KB · Views: 109
  • US9009966.pdf
    943.4 KB · Views: 21
specializedoptions1@gmail said:
Interesting text from a Northrop Grumman patent regarding a fixed geometry nozzle capable of subsonic, sonic, and supersonic speeds, eludes to the potential use of the XA series of next gen engines for 6th gen fighter aircraft, and quote, "Almost all nozzles have a convergent section because it increases the pressure in the rest of the engine-potentially yielding more thrust by acting on the forward sections. It is important to note that convergent nozzles end with this convergent section, and in general, narrower convergent nozzles give lower thrust and higher exhaust speed, but wider convergent nozzles give lower exhaust speed and higher thrust". Placing specific emphasis on the segment regarding yielding more thrust by acting on forward sections.
Click to expand...
Interesting, because that is not how jet engines work. They make thrust by accelerating a mass flow out the exhaust, plus any residual excess pressure difference between the exhaust plane and the inlet plane, acting over the area of the exhaust. You control the convergent area to set engine pressure ratio to accelerate the mass flow to Mach 1, then any remaining nozzle pressure ratio is used to accelerate the mass flow beyond Mach 1 in the divergent nozzle.

Now, before anyone brings up the SR-71 propulsion system and says “the inlet generates 80% of the thrust due to the internal pressure rise at Mach 3.2”, this is both true and false, depending on how you draw the control volume around the propulsion system. If you isolate the inlet by itself, there is indeed a very large pressure differential pushing forward on the inlet structure. And this is very important to the design engineers building that structure to ensure it is strong enough to withstand that force. But if you draw the control volume starting at the inlet plane and ending at the exhaust plane, that internal pressure differential is invisible. That inlet pressure is still available at the exhaust (plus a little from the core engine), creating a nozzle pressure ratio sufficient to drive the mass flow at high enough speeds to account for the entire thrust of the propulsion system.

I’m not sure what Northrop is trying to do with this non-varying nozzle patent, unless they are able to change the effective area using fluidic flow methods. But increasing pressure at the front of the engine to make more thrust isn’t the right physics
 
Not a disagreement - but from what I remember from school, the pressure rise at the inlet is _important_ for _scramjets_ - i just dont remember what!

also why the hell are we publishing this stuff in the open literature? are we really that behind?
 
The pressure rise in the inlet is of vast importance to the overall performance of any air breathing jet - turbojet, turbofan, ram jet or scram jet. The scram jet is something of an outlier since you don’t slow the inlet stream to subsonic to prevent the ram temperature from exceeding the temperature of combustion, so the pressure rise is limited.

But if you draw the control volume at the inlet and the exhaust, the only thing making thrust is the change in momentum of the flow entering and exiting the control volume, plus any pressure x area delta between them. Everything else is hidden within the control volume.
 
zevets said:
Not a disagreement - but from what I remember from school, the pressure rise at the inlet is _important_ for _scramjets_ - i just dont remember what!

also why the hell are we publishing this stuff in the open literature? are we really that behind?
Click to expand...
As F119Doctor said. What is important for efficiency is the preservation (as far as is possible) of the total pressure as static pressure is increased by slowing the air.
 
FighterJock said:
The NGAD is not going to be a forward swept wing fighter, the USAF lost interest in such wings years ago after testing the X-29.
Click to expand...
True, any benefit that FSW could bring today is irrelevant in fighter applications given the advances in propulsion and aircraft design. Not to forget the amount of extra reinforcement the wings need for shear stress would really make them unaffordable and heavy.
 
FighterJock said:
The NGAD is not going to be a forward swept wing fighter, the USAF lost interest in such wings years ago after testing the X-29.
Click to expand...
Shame that the FSW didn't offer much of a performance increase...

Though I really doubt the ability of engineers to make a wing that can still work when the airflow is spanwise compared to the normal direction...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Shame that the FSW didn't offer much of a performance increase...

Though I really doubt the ability of engineers to make a wing that can still work when the airflow is spanwise compared to the normal direction...
Click to expand...
So cool thing is the patent I shared about the vortex attachment for highly swept wings actually addresses that very issue! The latter portion of the text along with some other patents from them as well detail micro ejectors used to keep the airflow going spanwise! Give it a read and let me know your thoughts!
 
sferrin said:
This configuration, that has been talked about for pages, does not say "NGAD" to me. Looks more F-16-ish in size. I would think it something more like this one:

View attachment 730375
Click to expand...
As far as I know, this rendition is from collins aerospace which shows two versions, one with and without canards. Collins aerospace is an RTX company just like Pratt and Whitney. Now whether this is NGAD or F/A-XX is a great question. A giveaway may be that refueling receptacle on the right side of the aircraft is consistent with naval aerial refueling methods, so this could be the F/A-XX preliminary concept.
 
specializedoptions1@gmail said:
As far as I know, this rendition is from collins aerospace which shows two versions, one with and without canards. Collins aerospace is an RTX company just like Pratt and Whitney. Now whether this is NGAD or F/A-XX is a great question. A giveaway may be that refueling receptacle on the right side of the aircraft is consistent with naval aerial refueling methods, so this could be the F/A-XX preliminary concept.
Click to expand...
Hello! This is a design of mine:
rodrigoavella.com

Rodrigo Avella - Sixth Generation F/A-XX Fighter - Upgrade

Concept for a US Navy's Next Generation Air Dominance. NGAD - FX - F/A-XX - STEALTH - GCAP - FCAS - SCAF - FSAC - GLOBAL COMBAT AIR PROGRAMME - FUTURE COMBAT AIR SYSTEM - UCAV - UAV - USAF - NAVY - DRONE
rodrigoavella.com rodrigoavella.com
rodrigoavella.com

Rodrigo Avella - Sixth Generation F/A-XX Fighter

Concept for a US Navy's Next Generation Air Dominance. NGAD - FX - F/A-XX - STEALTH - GCAP - FCAS - SCAF - FSAC - GLOBAL COMBAT AIR PROGRAMME - FUTURE COMBAT AIR SYSTEM - UCAV - UAV - USAF - NAVY - DRONE
rodrigoavella.com rodrigoavella.com
Purchased by Collins Aerospace on Turbosquid. For a short period of time I sold this model on that platform. Until I realized the commissions they charged. Collins Aerospace apparently bought it. Best regards!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom