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

[latenlazy]

Superior supermaneuverability in WVR is marginal and irrelevant in the context of advanced high-off bore sight missiles and HMD which almost guarantee mutual destruction in WVR engagement. The necessary visual identification is not necessary with the introduction of advanced IRST and powerful AESA which basically paints the aircraft out visually on your display from miles away, no need for the naked eye identification. However, one has to ask if the future is stealth vs stealth, these identification instruments become less effective, such a need for visual identification become relevant again?

This will be taken by some as a very silly analogy but bear with me;

When I was in college with lots of downtime, classes over for the day and baseball practice finished, I used to 'dogfight' with my roommate on these two crappy ten speed bikes we had by driving around like lunatics with water guns.

1) When we first started we would hold the water gun in our hand this allowed almost 360 degree shooting, result, each of us got wet.
2) Then we taped them to the handlebars meaning you had to get behind the other person to win, result, one winner but man were we tired ;D

To make a long story short the 1) is high off bore sight missiles where neither of us turned much (both dead) and 2) is a traditional dog fight turning like crazy (one dead but totally random based on bike 'pilot' skill and choices.

I liked this analogy. It reminded me why I'm not religious about high-off boresight. There's a natural kinematic and sensor disadvantage to firing high-off boresight that we presume will be counterattacked by advanced sensor and propulsion technologies. Neither are guaranteed to be hard to neutralized. After all, it's not just how big an advantage new capabilities give you, but how hard it is to match or counter those capabilities that determine true game changers.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

My point exactly. When these engagements quickly devolve, and in real world combat they will, A stealth vs stealth scenario will require a visual range fight.

assuming both aircraft are equal in RCS and sensors of course. seeing as we will talk about agility down to tenths of Gs, it makes little sense to suddenly declare all aircraft equal in everything except agility. furthermore depending on RCS and sensors aircraft may still get very close before one detects the other and still be outside of visual range. its not a one or the other proposition where stealth either works completely perfectly or its WVR.

IR sensors are going to be countered, IRST sensors laser dazzled, radars jammed with countermeasures and competing AESA systems, chaff used, etc.

yes they will but to what degree and under what circumstances remains to be seen.

the guy with less energy maneuverability ( the f-35s poor rapid transients performance, A sustained G capability less than a similarly fueled F-4E) is going to be sitting at a disadvantage.

I like that you mention the F-4 which was not impressive in the agility department yet dominated MiGs when flown properly.

Not to mention the counter stealth developments on both sides. The BVR is a tech guys dream, its just one that hasn't been backed up with the real world facts.

mind sharing your sources?

Even i recent combat, BVR has optimistically resulted in 9% of kills, and thats being optimistic.

define "recent"

BVR capability is great to have and should be on the heavy fighters, but physics show that a great BVR fighter

There is no such thing as a "great BVR fighter" according to you, 91 percent of kills come from WVR. even trying to seperate "WVR fighters" and "BVR fighters" makes no sense as the teen series of fighters and the F-22/F-35 are capable of doing both.

requires larger and heavier and more sophisticated equipment which leads to the upward spiral in weight which ultimately degrades aircraft performance which will be needed in a WVR fight

That was the argument in the 1970s, it wasn't true then, and its not true now. Gripens have BVR missiles.

between twostealth fighters, Forget HMS, what good is it if you're aircraft cant outrun or outturn a missile to begin with?

Thats the whole point, the future looks like no one will be able to outrun or out turn HOBs missiles, HMS etc are making it so no amount of speed or turning will save you. so what good is 3d vectored thrust? The missiles are getting better, the aircraft are limited by the people in the cockpits, and most fighters can't break mach 1 without exhausting their fuel in combat conditions. in a multi aircraft dogfight multiple missiles may be fired at the same aircraft, and dodging one means blundering into another.

the aircraft that sees first, fires first has a huge advantage even if the missile doesn't hit as the attacker is still dictating the fight. you don't casually start doing manuevers to put the attacker on the defense when you have a missile on your tail, and how can the defender know where the attacker is to even start reversing the fight? Action beats reaction everytime, and if you want to talk about Boyd, don't forget the OODA loop. A stealthy attacker with superior sensors has a huge advantage.

The bottom line is maneuvering to avoid missiles is the most dangerous way of handling them, that why EW, SEAD, VLO, etc exist. You keep trying to divide the argument-- BVR vs WVR when modern fighters are both, and then building on that falsehood that the fighter that is most maneuverable inherently wins WVR, which is utter horse puckey. For example an F-4's BVR missiles not hitting a Mig-17 and the fight entering WVR didn't automatically mean that the phantom would lose.

 

[gtg947h]

This will be taken by some as a very silly analogy but bear with me;

When I was in college with lots of downtime, classes over for the day and baseball practice finished, I used to 'dogfight' with my roommate on these two crappy ten speed bikes we had by driving around like lunatics with water guns.

1) When we first started we would hold the water gun in our hand this allowed almost 360 degree shooting, result, each of us got wet.
2) Then we taped them to the handlebars meaning you had to get behind the other person to win, result, one winner but man were we tired ;D

To make a long story short the 1) is high off bore sight missiles where neither of us turned much (both dead) and 2) is a traditional dog fight turning like crazy (one dead but totally random based on bike 'pilot' skill and choices.

Holy crap that sounds like fun ;D

 

[lantinian]

Your story is great but the analogy is indeed poor.

If I had to translate you analogy back into the real world, 1) will be a dogfight not between stealth fighters with but with slow WWI fighters with bomber gun turrets instead of missiles.

You analogy simply does not take into account the following:
- missiles are projectiles with their own guidance, sensors, motors and differences in warheads and kinematics.
- there is a lot more difference in fighter/missile sensor quality than in human biological ones the former are subject to all kinds of interference that you didn't simulate in college.
- speeds at which future fighter combat will take place make it impossible for humans to shoot and score with anything unguided munition other than a laser.

 

[bobbymike]

Your story is great but the analogy is indeed poor.

If I had to translate you analogy back into the real world, 1) will be a dogfight not between stealth fighters with but with slow WWI fighters with bomber gun turrets instead of missiles.

You analogy simply does not take into account the following:
- missiles are projectiles with their own guidance, sensors, motors and differences in warheads and kinematics.
- there is a lot more difference in fighter/missile sensor quality than in human biological ones the former are subject to all kinds of interference that you didn't simulate in college.
- speeds at which future fighter combat will take place make it impossible for humans to shoot and score with anything unguided munition other than a laser.

What are you saying? I didn't have the latest sensor and radar package on my bicycle? My bike is not an F-22? A water gun is not an AIM-9X?

The final paragragh in the original post reflects that the sole point of my analogy was to equate the ability to shoot close to 360 degrees - dog fighting with HMD and high off boresight missiles - almost always resulted in both of us "dying" which was the point some were making arguing that planes won't have to have SU-35 abilities even in WVR combat. You won't need to turn your plane when you can just turn your head.

 

[BDF]

Ok back to the discussion at hand. Really love the LM concept, wish (hope?) its an actual working design. Anyway saw a unusual aperture on the rear left of a couple of the stills:

I'm guessing could be as mundane as chaff and flare launcher to a DEW aperture. Interestingly its not present in the last still captured from the video.

 

[sferrin]

It's a reflection off the canopy of the aircraft "filming" the new design.

 

[BDF]

It's a reflection off the canopy of the aircraft "filming" the new design.

Wow I'm an idiot. Totally missed that :-[

 

[Radical]

I'm not too sure about that concept's intake. Seems a bit odd that the chines are leading right into the middle of the intakes.

Also doesn't seem to have much room for weapons, although perhaps bays can be made smaller in the future because of missiles like the Cuda.

 

[SOC]

I'm not too sure about that concept's intake. Seems a bit odd that the chines are leading right into the middle of the intakes.

Maybe they've turned it into some sort of supercruising DSI?

 

[bobbymike]

Fan of Adaptation

Pratt & Whitney later this year will begin testing the adaptive fan that is part of the next-generation variable-cycle propulsion design that it is maturing under the Air Force Research Lab's Adaptive Engine Technology Development program, said Bennett Croswell, president of the company's military engines sector. "We are going to be running that fan at [AFRL's] Compressor Research Facility in Dayton, [Ohio], in the next few months," he told the Daily Report last month in Paris for the Paris Air Show. Those tests will run into 2015. "Then, we will run the core of our adaptive engine, which is the compressor, combustor, and the high turbine. Then, the next year [2016], we will run a full engine," he said. Last October, the Air Force announced a $335 million contract to the company for these activities. AETD "will be the foundation of our next generation of fighter engines," said Croswell. This work will also provide opportunities for spinning off technologies to upgrade the F135 engine for the F-35 strike fighter, he said during the June 16 interview. The Air Force envisions that variable-cycle engines will be able to operate efficiently over a range of operating scenarios—such as during a fast cruise or at slower loitering speeds. General Electric Aviation is also maturing AETD technology under Air Force sponsorship. (See also In for the Long Burn.)

—Michael C. Sirak​

7/1/2013

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/07/is-this-the-lightweight-fighte.html

 

[bobbymike]

WASHINGTON — The makeup of the US Navy’s carrier air wings will start to shift in a few years as the F-35C joint strike fighter begins to enter service. The typical carrier flight deck will see both F-35s and F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets in operation. But thoughts already are turning to what lies beyond the F-35’s fifth-generation aviation technology, to the planes that in the 2030s will begin to replace the F/A-18s flying with US and international services.
Rear Adm. Bill Moran, the Navy’s director of air warfare in the Pentagon, offered his thoughts on the future aircraft, dubbed the F/A-XX, during an interview in the Pentagon.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130710/DEFREG02/307100015

 

[jsport]

WASHINGTON — The makeup of the US Navy’s carrier air wings will start to shift in a few years as the F-35C joint strike fighter begins to enter service. The typical carrier flight deck will see both F-35s and F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets in operation. But thoughts already are turning to what lies beyond the F-35’s fifth-generation aviation technology, to the planes that in the 2030s will begin to replace the F/A-18s flying with US and international services.
Rear Adm. Bill Moran, the Navy’s director of air warfare in the Pentagon, offered his thoughts on the future aircraft, dubbed the F/A-XX, during an interview in the Pentagon.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130710/DEFREG02/307100015

will still take the reference to "High and Fast" as cue to traversing continents and then striking...
Hopefully, some folks remembering what these things are for and what certain platforms can't do well.

 

[dark sidius]

I think it will be possible to fly fast and high with new type of engine like the Advent or AETD program, the new propulsion will be the backbone of the new 6g fighter.

 

[Sundog]

I think it will be possible to fly fast and high with new type of engine like the Advent or AETD program, the new propulsion will be the backbone of the new 6g fighter.

That may be possible, but it isn't necessarily what the Navy needs. That's why they are asking for a systems approach to the requirements. There will be "high and fast" requirements for some of what is required, but is that best handled by a manned aircraft, a drone, or a hyper velocity weapon? Those are some of the trade studies the Navy is expecting to be done, not, "Hey, what's the coolest new fighter you can make for us?" It's about figuring out which missions should be manned, which should be unmanned, and what types of weapons/systems would be required for that/those platform(s) to employ them.

I don't think they are looking for a defined configuration ATM. They want the mission/system trade studies done now, so they can determine what the requirements will be for the upcoming systems. Then they'll be able to inform the airframers of what they need them to design as a result of the outcome of this study. Although, the aircraft manufacturers may include design studies to support whatever they propose to meet the requirements and show what they're capable of achieving, hypothetically speaking. However, my reading of this new study is that that is not the primary purpose of the study.

 

[dark sidius]

In the first requirements for the Navy there is the air dominance a thing than the F-35c can't do very well in a Chinese like anti access environnement. I think its for the air dominance Navy want a plane able to fly high and fast to counter new threat like the futur J-20 or similar. LRS-B will be the first new stealth jet of inventory since decade so when it will be public it give us surely a good idea of what the futur stealth plane like FA/XX will look like and what kind of capacity it will have.

 

[donnage99]

In the first requirements for the Navy there is the air dominance a thing than the F-35c can't do very well in a Chinese like anti access environnement. I think its for the air dominance Navy want a plane able to fly high and fast to counter new threat like the futur J-20 or similar. LRS-B will be the first new stealth jet of inventory since decade so when it will be public it give us surely a good idea of what the futur stealth plane like FA/XX will look like and what kind of capacity it will have.

First of all, please consider this as a humble request - it's very hard to understand what you're trying to say without proper punctuation. It's understandable if English isn't your first language though. Secondly, to your point, I don't think it really countered what Sundog said. It's important to know whether u want the aircraft to be fast or the missile that it delivers to be fast. This requires extensive studies.

 

[dark sidius]

Donnage 99, sorry my first language is French, little difficulty sometimes with ponctuation

 

[jsport]

This subject doesn't take grammar or study.
The Admiral stated in original article, 'Fast and High'.

Low & slow-f-35C & F/A-18- the compromise

High & fast-NGAD-the goal

 

[bring_it_on]

Would it not be wise for the USN to first begin developing newer weaponry for the 4.5 fifth generation fighter it operates (SH) and the 5th generation fighter it is scheduled to operate in a few years (F-35)? The canning of the NGM means that the USN would have to work with the Aim-120D as its main weapon, despite alternatives that could be developed that would have significantly better performance (JDRADM/NGM etc etc). The Navy did not wish to join the NGM iirc, perhaps their would be a push towards A2A weapons development once studies from DARPA's air dominance initiative materialize...It would seem a more logical approach to develop advanced weaponry for the existing fleet while planning for future fleet replacement 10-15 years down the road.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/07/is-this-what-the-lockheed-mart.html

 

[flateric]

"it's several topic pages old, dude"

 

[bring_it_on]

I think its a bit premature to narrow down on a particular design, even for the contractors. The USN and DARPA (Air dominance Initiative) need to narrow down on a few capabilities that the potential adversaries will field in the 2030's and beyond:

* How capable would the J20/J31 be, in terms of Stealth, range, payload....and how many can china put into operational use
* How the A2AD thread evolves vis-a-vis the Carrier...
* How advanced do the Chinese MRBM's get (DF-21XXX)
* What advances China makes as far as stealthy cruise missiles, and hypersonics
* How far are breakthrough technologies such as DEW's, both for us and the adversaries.

Based on these and other questions, the NAVY and DARPA would have to design the mission set....Hunting a large fleet of Stealthy (Even if they are in between the F-18E/F and F-35C in terms of Brute VLO performance) jets, capable of supercruising (Even at Mach 1.2-1.3) is not going to be easy, especially if they are specifically tasked at A2AD against a carrier. Future planned and potential developments of the AEGIS also have to be factored in as the system has to evolve to target, an increasingly sophisticated MRBM threat, the other air defences have to be fine tuned to take on an opponent armed with stealth fighters and UCAV's, and the overall Net-centricity has to be viewed and factored in.

One thing is pretty clear, a Carrier wing equipped with F--35C, and F-18E/F is not going to cut it, against a determined opponent in the pacific, that can potentially field a large number of VLO , supercruising fighters, a swarm of cheap, stealthy UCAV's, and a sophisticated MRBM and Hypersonic AsM threat. Even if the F-35 is an overall better bird than the J-20 (Thats a hypothetical) it will still have to contend with the fact that china can field a vastly superior number of Air superiority stealth fighters, so the F-35 is not going to be able to handle it all by itself. I also do not share the pessimism that others feel about the prospects of the FA-XX being a Navy only fighter...I can imagine the navy getting a systems commonality with the air force, but the time-lines for USN are much different than the air force, the USN uses up its fighter faster (Shorter lives), does not have the luxury of having the F-22, and is not bogged down with the LRS_B with which its air wing must compete for funding. I can foresee, the USN and DARPA working on the air dominance initiative developing technology and refining requirement for a potential next generation fighter, and then the USN moving towards their own program with their own set of goals. It would TOUGH to see the CONGRESS force the USN, into a ONE FIGHTER force (F-35)....

 

[bobbymike]

I think its a bit premature to narrow down on a particular design, even for the contractors. The USN and DARPA (Air dominance Initiative) need to narrow down on a few capabilities that the potential adversaries will field in the 2030's and beyond:

* How capable would the J20/J31 be, in terms of Stealth, range, payload....and how many can china put into operational use
* How the A2AD thread evolves vis-a-vis the Carrier...
* How advanced do the Chinese MRBM's get (DF-21XXX)
* What advances China makes as far as stealthy cruise missiles, and hypersonics
* How far are breakthrough technologies such as DEW's, both for us and the adversaries.

Based on these and other questions, the NAVY and DARPA would have to design the mission set....Hunting a large fleet of Stealthy (Even if they are in between the F-18E/F and F-35C in terms of Brute VLO performance) jets, capable of supercruising (Even at Mach 1.2-1.3) is not going to be easy, especially if they are specifically tasked at A2AD against a carrier. Future planned and potential developments of the AEGIS also have to be factored in as the system has to evolve to target, an increasingly sophisticated MRBM threat, the other air defences have to be fine tuned to take on an opponent armed with stealth fighters and UCAV's, and the overall Net-centricity has to be viewed and factored in.

One thing is pretty clear, a Carrier wing equipped with F--35C, and F-18E/F is not going to cut it, against a determined opponent in the pacific, that can potentially field a large number of VLO , supercruising fighters, a swarm of cheap, stealthy UCAV's, and a sophisticated MRBM and Hypersonic AsM threat. Even if the F-35 is an overall better bird than the J-20 (Thats a hypothetical) it will still have to contend with the fact that china can field a vastly superior number of Air superiority stealth fighters, so the F-35 is not going to be able to handle it all by itself. I also do not share the pessimism that others feel about the prospects of the FA-XX being a Navy only fighter...I can imagine the navy getting a systems commonality with the air force, but the time-lines for USN are much different than the air force, the USN uses up its fighter faster (Shorter lives), does not have the luxury of having the F-22, and is not bogged down with the LRS_B with which its air wing must compete for funding. I can foresee, the USN and DARPA working on the air dominance initiative developing technology and refining requirement for a potential next generation fighter, and then the USN moving towards their own program with their own set of goals. It would TOUGH to see the CONGRESS force the USN, into a ONE FIGHTER force (F-35)....

Of course with the timelines involved in developing and fielding a 6th Gen fighter you really can't 'wait' to see what your enemies develop before proceeding with the next generation.

Russia and Chinese developments are in large part a reaction to US developments you don't want to change to 'reacting' to their developments because you could leave yourself always behind their next program arguably like they are a 1/2 of full generation behind our developments.

 

[bring_it_on]

Of course with the timelines involved in developing and fielding a 6th Gen fighter you really can't 'wait' to see what your enemies develop before proceeding with the next generation.

I did not suggest that we wait to see what capability they field, and then begin development. What i am suggesting is that we begin to lay the ground for the technology that will be required to beat the sort of threat the current intelligence is forecasting for a post 2030 environment. Of course as we get closer to the 2020-2025 time line, then more mature systems could be proposed. The program and the studies are to FRESH at the moment for the contractors to pick and start designing fighters for...We will have to work out, what level of SENSORS can be developed in the next decade that will enable Long range detection and targeting of Stealth aircraft, which would have proliferated by then throughout the Pacific (J-20, J-31, Pakfa, Potential Stealthy versions of the current 4th gen aircraft (similar to F-18E/F International), we also need propulsion targets that can be delivered with high probability in those time lines...Without answers to these questions, the concepts proposed by Boeing or Lockheed, do not really mean much, as we have seen with the ATF when the final product looked quite a bit different from what was being proposed in the 80's. The LRS_B which should be the "Best thing for stealth" since the B-2, should allow for vast R&D into Newer materials, coatings (RAM, RAS, IR suppression) that can be leveraged into other programs...Similarly the AETD, which should prepare the Variable Cycle engine for the EMD phase, will lay the foundation of any future propulsion requirements (I think the Navy has their own Variable cycle engine as well)....So all these technologies really need to be mature or significantly de-risked before design teams can go about formulating formal designs for submission...Without those targets, its mostly graphic work with little substance, besides the general outline of what the designers are thinking at that time. Its very easy to just randomly add capability, like 20% greater Supercruise, 20% better VLO, 20% better range etc, but as the ATF has shown, the NG will most likely bring capability to the table that the 5th gen does not possess. Long range targeting of stealth fighters and ucav's, Mach 2+ supercruise, Long range, DEW's, Modular Weapons Bays, etc are what i can think of....A 2 seater version could also be made possible.

BTW, Has anyone come across the Northrop proposal for the 2012 FA-XX RFI? The Boeing and Lockheed Graphics get spoken a lot, but i would expect NG to also have something that they would like to offer, unless they plan to partner with B or L and not go in by themselves (Seems unlikely)...If Indeed its NG that has an upper hand in the LRS_B (which some speculate) then they would probably have the most access to cutting edge R&D on new materials and stealth.

 

[bobbymike]

Of course with the timelines involved in developing and fielding a 6th Gen fighter you really can't 'wait' to see what your enemies develop before proceeding with the next generation.

I did not suggest that we wait to see what capability they field, and then begin development. What i am suggesting is that we begin to lay the ground for the technology that will be required to beat the sort of threat the current intelligence is forecasting for a post 2030 environment. Of course as we get closer to the 2020-2025 time line, then more mature systems could be proposed. The program and the studies are to FRESH at the moment for the contractors to pick and start designing fighters for...We will have to work out, what level of SENSORS can be developed in the next decade that will enable Long range detection and targeting of Stealth aircraft, which would have proliferated by then throughout the Pacific (J-20, J-31, Pakfa, Potential Stealthy versions of the current 4th gen aircraft (similar to F-18E/F International), we also need propulsion targets that can be delivered with high probability in those time lines...Without answers to these questions, the concepts proposed by Boeing or Lockheed, do not really mean much, as we have seen with the ATF when the final product looked quite a bit different from what was being proposed in the 80's. The LRS_B which should be the "Best thing for stealth" since the B-2, should allow for vast R&D into Newer materials, coatings (RAM, RAS, IR suppression) that can be leveraged into other programs...Similarly the AETD, which should prepare the Variable Cycle engine for the EMD phase, will lay the foundation of any future propulsion requirements (I think the Navy has their own Variable cycle engine as well)....So all these technologies really need to be mature or significantly de-risked before design teams can go about formulating formal designs for submission...Without those targets, its mostly graphic work with little substance, besides the general outline of what the designers are thinking at that time. Its very easy to just randomly add capability, like 20% greater Supercruise, 20% better VLO, 20% better range etc, but as the ATF has shown, the NG will most likely bring capability to the table that the 5th gen does not possess. Long range targeting of stealth fighters and ucav's, Mach 2+ supercruise, Long range, DEW's, Modular Weapons Bays, etc are what i can think of....A 2 seater version could also be made possible.

BTW, Has anyone come across the Northrop proposal for the 2012 FA-XX RFI? The Boeing and Lockheed Graphics get spoken a lot, but i would expect NG to also have something that they would like to offer, unless they plan to partner with B or L and not go in by themselves (Seems unlikely)...If Indeed its NG that has an upper hand in the LRS_B (which some speculate) then they would probably have the most access to cutting edge R&D on new materials and stealth.

You don't think the military forecasts what enemy capabilities might be present in the next 10, 20 or 30 years now?

 

[bring_it_on]

You don't think the military forecasts what enemy capabilities might be present in the next 10, 20 or 30 years now?

They probably do, but what about technology catching up? Does the Navy Know what the appropriate propulsion goals would be for a notional IOC of 2030? What would be a better timeline to look at achievable targets? How Much does a technology need to be de-risked before you draw spec in stone and go about achieving it. The FA-XX as a program is not very old, nor is it loaded with money (As of now). DARPA's Air defence initiative is also very young. Do you think its wiser to set design goals in stone now, or wait for these efforts to materialize before looking at what is achievable. The industry is responding to the USN effort to solicit Industry inputs, and this is exactly what is happening. My point was that the early designs, do not reflect much in terms of responding to a SET CAPABILITY, that stage would come much later, perhaps closer to 2020 if not later (The 2030 IOC Date is rather optimistic in my opinion unless we see a major boost in funding).....Its probably wiser to wait a bit longer and piggy back on the LRS-B developments, which should be FLUSH with funds as far as R&D is concerned on STEALTH, SENSORS and perhaps propulsion. If it were up to me, i'd bring back the NGM, speed ahead with the Blk III Sidewinder, and make sure the AETD engines are funded and protected.

 

[sferrin]

I doubt it would be "set in stone" until relatively late. Too tough to predict the unpredictable. Take the F/X (F-15). It was going to be one thing and then, "whoops there's this Mig-25 boogie-man. . .". Then the F-22 was going to be one thing and, "hey guys, we've got this stealth thing".

 

[Sundog]

Also, no one should take these images as what they're actually proposing. They should be viewed more as technology demonstration images. They aren't actually going to show what they really think the 6th gen planes will look like, because the tech in the actual designs is probably still classified and they also don't want their competitors to know which direction they're going for their designs. Also, by showing the actual designs, one would be able to glean the basic actual performance requirements.
Though I do enjoy the images they've released.

 

[sferrin]

Also, no one should take these images as what they're actually proposing. They should be viewed more as technology demonstration images. They aren't actually going to show what they really think the 6th gen planes will look like, because the tech in the actual designs is probably still classified and they also don't want their competitors to know which direction they're going for their designs. Also, by showing the actual designs, one would be able to glean the basic actual performance requirements.
Though I do enjoy the images they've released.

I still chuckle over the fact that so much of the ATF (F-22) art released back in the day showed canards, everybody goes canard-crazy (Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Lavi, Mig 1.44) and then we find out that none of the ATF submissions had a canard. ;D

 

[F-14D]

Also, no one should take these images as what they're actually proposing. They should be viewed more as technology demonstration images. They aren't actually going to show what they really think the 6th gen planes will look like, because the tech in the actual designs is probably still classified and they also don't want their competitors to know which direction they're going for their designs. Also, by showing the actual designs, one would be able to glean the basic actual performance requirements.
Though I do enjoy the images they've released.

I still chuckle over the fact that so much of the ATF (F-22) art released back in the day showed canards, everybody goes canard-crazy (Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Lavi, Mig 1.44) and then we find out that none of the ATF submissions had a canard. ;D

Weeellll, Northrop/MDD NATF was a canard, and until they decided they couldn't fly the carrier approach profile with one, so was Lockheed's X-35. Just sayin'

 

[sferrin]

Also, no one should take these images as what they're actually proposing. They should be viewed more as technology demonstration images. They aren't actually going to show what they really think the 6th gen planes will look like, because the tech in the actual designs is probably still classified and they also don't want their competitors to know which direction they're going for their designs. Also, by showing the actual designs, one would be able to glean the basic actual performance requirements.
Though I do enjoy the images they've released.

I still chuckle over the fact that so much of the ATF (F-22) art released back in the day showed canards, everybody goes canard-crazy (Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Lavi, Mig 1.44) and then we find out that none of the ATF submissions had a canard. ;D

Weeellll, Northrop/MDD NATF was a canard, and until they decided they couldn't fly the carrier approach profile with one, so was Lockheed's X-35. Just sayin'

Funny how making an aircraft able to operate from carrier required a canard in one instance and getting rid of it in another. I'd think a canard, providing the aircraft with lift at both the front and rear, would always be better for that. ???

 

[F-14D]

Also, no one should take these images as what they're actually proposing. They should be viewed more as technology demonstration images. They aren't actually going to show what they really think the 6th gen planes will look like, because the tech in the actual designs is probably still classified and they also don't want their competitors to know which direction they're going for their designs. Also, by showing the actual designs, one would be able to glean the basic actual performance requirements.
Though I do enjoy the images they've released.

I still chuckle over the fact that so much of the ATF (F-22) art released back in the day showed canards, everybody goes canard-crazy (Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Lavi, Mig 1.44) and then we find out that none of the ATF submissions had a canard. ;D

Weeellll, Northrop/MDD NATF was a canard, and until they decided they couldn't fly the carrier approach profile with one, so was Lockheed's X-35. Just sayin'

Funny how making an aircraft able to operate from carrier required a canard in one instance and getting rid of it in another. I'd think a canard, providing the aircraft with lift at both the front and rear, would always be better for that. ???

The trick is holding constant AoA as the speed decreases and the ability to rapidly change pitch when needed at low speed/power. I guess Lockheed felt that a conventional tail's longer moment arm worked better than a close coupled canard, whereas Northrop/MDD felt the greater lift the canard provided was worth it and their control system could handle the situation. Worked for Rafale, and Saab says they could make it work for Gripen.

 

[Radical]

I do wonder if Lockheed plans on resurrecting some of the ideas from its old AFX-653 for NGAD or F/A-XX.

 

[Sundog]

The trick is holding constant AoA as the speed decreases and the ability to rapidly change pitch when needed at low speed/power. I guess Lockheed felt that a conventional tail's longer moment arm worked better than a close coupled canard, whereas Northrop/MDD felt the greater lift the canard provided was worth it and their control system could handle the situation. Worked for Rafale, and Saab says they could make it work for Gripen.

IIRC, A canard needs higher alpha at low speed than a conventional tail and runs out of airspeed before the conventional tail does. I remember seeing a graph, I think it was of control power at low speeds for a given alpha, and the conventional tail was better than the canard in that respect. I wish I could remember where I saw that graphic. I think I saw it in reference to the JSF program and I think, partly, it was for an explanation of why the X-32 grew a horizontal tail.

 

[F-14D]

The trick is holding constant AoA as the speed decreases and the ability to rapidly change pitch when needed at low speed/power. I guess Lockheed felt that a conventional tail's longer moment arm worked better than a close coupled canard, whereas Northrop/MDD felt the greater lift the canard provided was worth it and their control system could handle the situation. Worked for Rafale, and Saab says they could make it work for Gripen.

IIRC, A canard needs higher alpha at low speed than a conventional tail and runs out of airspeed before the conventional tail does. I remember seeing a graph, I think it was of control power at low speeds for a given alpha, and the conventional tail was better than the canard in that respect. I wish I could remember where I saw that graphic. I think I saw it in reference to the JSF program and I think, partly, it was for an explanation of why the X-32 grew a horizontal tail.

You're right, that was the given reason (and also so that the plane wouldn't look hideous from every possible view ). Boeing's idea of a leading edge device on the upper wing surface apparently wouldn't give all the control authority needed.

 

[Triton]

Air pilot's egos so fragile that it really bothers them to fly an aircraft some consider to be ugly or hideous? And were pilots really emasculated when they took delivery of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors painted with pink primer?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Air pilot's egos so fragile that it really bothers them to fly an aircraft some consider to be ugly or hideous? And were pilots really emasculated when they took delivery of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors painted with pink primer?

They are sensitive like women on their wedding day, and when they don't get what they want they cry and pout like disappointed children on christmas.

 

[bring_it_on]

Latest commercial technology works for next USAF fighter engine


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/latest-commercial-technology-works-for-next-usaf-fighter-engine-388948/