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

[LowObservable]

Remember that CALF started as a CTOL/STOVL concept. The original LockMart design was a canard because it had better area distribution than a tail-aft, which was important because of the lift-fan volume being well forward.

However, once you added CV, wing span and area were driven by the approach-speed case - but a CV-sized wing would be too heavy for STOVL. Now consider the geometry of adding span to a highly tapered (delta) wing without compound sweep (which your signature guys won't let you do). Your root chord goes up and (unless you want to suboptimize weight and volume) so does root thickness. Your canard/wing separation goes to hell because the canard needs to be larger too.

Boeing tried to get away with a big delta wing with modest loading and small tip extensions for the CV. What nailed them finally was the chord and consequent actuator power and weight of the elevons needed to provide enough trim/control for the Navy's bring-back requirement, which firmed up part-way through the CDA stage at a higher value than they had anticipated.


In short, their initial design could not meet the CV requirement - and indeed, neither could LockMart's winning CV design, without a 5,000 pound increase in OEW and bigger wings and stabilizers.

 

[yasotay]

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.

Having spent some time around fighter pilots I can tell you they do have egos the size of Jupiter. But then you don't want doubters flying fighters were split second decisions will make or break victory. They actually look for that in pilot selection.

 

[sferrin]

Remember that CALF started as a CTOL/STOVL concept. The original LockMart design was a canard because it had better area distribution than a tail-aft, which was important because of the lift-fan volume being well forward.

However, once you added CV, wing span and area were driven by the approach-speed case - but a CV-sized wing would be too heavy for STOVL. Now consider the geometry of adding span to a highly tapered (delta) wing without compound sweep (which your signature guys won't let you do). Your root chord goes up and (unless you want to suboptimize weight and volume) so does root thickness. Your canard/wing separation goes to hell because the canard needs to be larger too.

Boeing tried to get away with a big delta wing with modest loading and small tip extensions for the CV. What nailed them finally was the chord and consequent actuator power and weight of the elevons needed to provide enough trim/control for the Navy's bring-back requirement, which firmed up part-way through the CDA stage at a higher value than they had anticipated.


In short, their initial design could not meet the CV requirement - and indeed, neither could LockMart's winning CV design, without a 5,000 pound increase in OEW and bigger wings and stabilizers.

 

[LowObservable]

I await a fact-based dissent from my comments.


I did not say (nor do I believe) that the Boeing X-32 would have done any better than the LockMart design. The Macs design had more potential but I wonder if it would have been executable either.

 

[sferrin]

I await a fact-based dissent from my comments.


I did not say (nor do I believe) that the Boeing X-32 would have done any better than the LockMart design. The Macs design had more potential but I wonder if it would have been executable either.

I think if it could have been afforded that the STOVL should have been broken out as it's own design. But we both know that could never happen as the unit cost would be astronomical. The desire was to replace the F-16, F/A-18, and Harrier. The fact that it isn't as fast as a Typhoon is completely irrelevant as none of the aircraft it is replacing is either. On the other hand it has a lot the Typhoon doesn't. Your constant complaining about it isn't going to change a thing, as the 100 F-35s built or in final assembly demonstrate.

edit: And before you drag out the F-16's clean speed being higher than the F-35's how about you hang a pair of 2000lb bombs, 2 AIM-120s, and a pair of drop tanks (to give the F-16 a similar fuel fraction to a clean F-35) on and F-16 and see who wins the race.

 

[LowObservable]

Which has exactly what do do with my original post, which was responding to questions about how CV drove the configurations and affected performance?


The fact that it isn't as fast as a Typhoon is completely irrelevant as none of the aircraft it is replacing is either.
[/size]
Could you explain the logic here? Surely if you are going to the trouble of replacing something with a new design, you want to offer greater performance, whether in stealth, speed, range or whatever? And how does that respond to anything I wrote in this thread? Or...

...forget it. More important stuff awaits.

 

[sferrin]

The fact that it isn't as fast as a Typhoon is completely irrelevant as none of the aircraft it is replacing is either.

Could you explain the logic here? Surely if you are going to the trouble of replacing something with a new design, you want to offer greater performance, whether in stealth, speed, range or whatever?

Perhaps you could educate me on how the F-35 is inferior to the F-16, F/A-18, and Harrier in the area of stealth, speed, range, whatever?
[/quote]

 

[Jemiba]

I don't think, that comparing the F-35 to the Typhoon, or to the F-16, F/A-18 or other current types
really has mujch importance to this thread. So, please, back to the topic !

 

[sferrin]

I don't think, that comparing the F-35 to the Typhoon, or to the F-16, F/A-18 or other current types
really has mujch importance to this thread. So, please, back to the topic !

I wish LM and Boeing would release some high rez artwork of those two designs we've seen a bit off.

 

[flateric]

From 'Skunk Works Celebrates Seventy Years' at CodeOne site. Check article for hi-res version.

 

[FighterJock]

From 'Skunk Works Celebrates Seventy Years' at CodeOne site. Check article for hi-res version.

Is it me or dose the current Skunk Works design look a lot like the Northrop YF-23?

 

[Steve Pace]

It's not you because it does! -SP

 

[dark sidius]

Pratt and whitney and the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) have begun testing with an adaptive fan engine test rig that is based on the company’s F135 afterburning turbofan found on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.According to P&W, the fan rig test is being conducted at the AFRL Compressor Research Facility in Dayton, Ohio, in tandem with the USAF’s Adaptive Engine Technology Demonstration (AETD) programme, the US Navy Fuel Burn Reduction (FBR) programme and other company-funded efforts.
“Developing an effective adaptive fan concept is a critical step in advancing technology that will ensure next generation air dominance for our military,” says Jack Hoying, the AFRL’s programme manager for the AETD effort.
Next-generation adaptive fan engines will allow a fighter-sized afterburning turbofan to alter its bypass ratio for different phases of flight by using a third stream of air. For low speeds below about Mach 0.85, the third air stream will be used to increase the engine’s bypass ratio and boost its propulsive efficiency.
However, at transonic and supersonic speeds where high specific thrust is needed, that third stream will run through the core and increase the jet velocity of the exhaust. The third airstream can also be used for cooling the engine during especially demanding operations.
“We’re building on our foundation of proven fifth generation capabilities, and we are now mastering adaptive technologies – really expanding the boundaries of state of the art engine technology critical for the next sixth-generation aircraft,” says Bennett Croswell, president of P&W military engines.
The results of the P&W adaptive fan rig tests will flow into the AETD programme, which has a stated goal of improving fuel consumption by 25% while providing a 10% increase in thrust compared with current fifth-generation fighter engines such as the F135. The navy’s FBR programme hopes to deliver a better than 5% fuel burn reduction on an F135 demonstration engine.
The jointly USAF and USN-funded adaptive fan test effort was launched in late 2011, with testing of the adaptive fan concept taking place from August through September 2013, according to P&W.

 

[Triton]

Even with Lockheed Martin and Boeing providing artist's impressions of manned Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) or F/A-XX fighter concepts, are manned fighter aircraft rapidly becoming obsolete? That sixth generation aircraft will mostly be Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs) and UCAVs, or popularly referred to as "drones", and that these aircraft will constitute most of the air forces of the United States Armed Forces?

 

[Sundog]

Even with Lockheed Martin and Boeing providing artist's impressions of manned Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) or F/A-XX fighter concepts, are manned fighter aircraft rapidly becoming obsolete? That sixth generation aircraft will mostly be Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs) and UCAVs, or popularly referred to as "drones", and that these aircraft will constitute most of the air forces of the United States Armed Forces?

Not likely, unless they can develop damned good AI. IMHO, depending on the mission, you'll still have manned aircraft acting in conjunction with RPV's and UCAV's as adjuncts to the manned aircraft's capabilities. Remember, UAV's and UCAV's don't have a person on board, but they do have at least one in the decision making loop. In aerial combat, many decisions have to be made at once and I don't see the signal lag time between vehicle and operator being overcome sufficiently to make the decisions as rapidly as required in aerial combat.

 

[Avimimus]

I suspect that manned aircraft will predominate in both strike and patrol roles which require flexibility and high autonomy. Air defense might end up in the hands of autonomous UCAVs with ground controllers designating areas for 'kill anything that moves'. I'm mainly thinking of a high endurance SAM (jet powered), with its own sensors and a couple of AAMs...

 

[bring_it_on]

I do not see how OPTIONALLY MANNED would work with Fighter sized crafts as many have hinted (Lockheed, SAAB etc)..What benefits do you get over a conventional UAV? You do not get extra range (unless you do extensive mods to the craft whereby practically killing the flexibility) or loiter time and you still end up with a very very expensive UCAV that has more sensors than it really needs..With things like MADL gaining acceptance you'd have incredibly fast tactical data links (with range) at your disposal thereby reducing the need to mount every possible ISR kit on every flying craft....

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/~/media/Files/Unsecure/Products/Product%20Brochures/Communcation%20and%20Networks/Networks/Tactical%20Targeting%20Network%20Technology/TTNT%20brochure.aspx

 

[Jemiba]

Optionally manned aircraft may allow for a lower number of aircraft and so a slight decrease in costs, I think.
About the roles for manned and unmanned aircraft, I agree with Avimimus. A combined type could take over
the tasks of a manned fighter and a sophisticated UAV, cost wise maybe 1.5 against 2 aircraft ...without taking
into account the still much higher attrition rate of UAV !

 

[bobbymike]

Optionally manned aircraft may allow for a lower number of aircraft and so a slight decrease in costs, I think.
About the roles for manned and unmanned aircraft, I agree with Avimimus. A combined type could take over
the tasks of a manned fighter and a sophisticated UAV, cost wise maybe 1.5 against 2 aircraft ...without taking
into account the still much higher attrition rate of UAV !

You may also want to enter a high threat environment, initially, without risk of losing pilots especially if it is a long range mission where pilot fatigue may be an issue.

 

[jsport]

I do not see how OPTIONALLY MANNED would work with Fighter sized crafts as many have hinted (Lockheed, SAAB etc)..What benefits do you get over a conventional UAV? You do not get extra range (unless you do extensive mods to the craft whereby practically killing the flexibility) or loiter time and you still end up with a very very expensive UCAV that has more sensors than it really needs..With things like MADL gaining acceptance you'd have incredibly fast tactical data links (with range) at your disposal thereby reducing the need to mount every possible ISR kit on every flying craft....

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/~/media/Files/Unsecure/Products/Product%20Brochures/Communcation%20and%20Networks/Networks/Tactical%20Targeting%20Network%20Technology/TTNT%20brochure.aspx

Contractor's portraying what appears to be an anti-access environment where GH, Predators and for that matter HMWVs and MRAPS surviving and thriving is ,again, highly deceptive.
As LO portrays in series on recent AW&ST articles, stealth craft such as UCAV and F-35 are going to quite lucky to survive..

 

[BDF]

You may also want to enter a high threat environment, initially, without risk of losing pilots especially if it is a long range mission where pilot fatigue may be an issue.

THIS is why optionally manned is attractive IMO. There's not doubt that a 6th gen platform will have offensive DEW, the question is when in the platform's lifespan will a laser become the primary A-A weapon? When it does manned operations become significantly less attractive because not only is the risk to the platform higher (assuming your enemy will have one around the same time) but also you could park those jets in cap orbits for days. Orbit, kill, refuel, repeat. I'm not sure if a lightweight, pulsed SSL will be up in the several hundred KW range by 2030 and I'm sure that the USAF will insist on a organic AAM capability to fill the gaps that the SSL isn't effective or not suited which IMO is a good idea.

I also don't see the benefit of going straight to uninhabited either. Given our requirements for large combat radius, a expendable weapon load in the 6-8Klbs range and lasers in the ~2klbs range a 6th Gen jet will certainly be a large twin engine platform. At that point the added weight of cockpit and environmental systems may not have a large impact on weight and cost. Couple that to the uncertainty of network integrity and AI capability it would seem that going with a optional manned capability makes the most sense.

One wrinkle would be if SSLs progress faster than anticipated the concept of a swarm of very stealthy UCAVs armed with lasers becomes very interesting. They may not have the ability of supersonic flight which would reduce transit times but once a swarm is established in an operating area anything that flies dies quickly. Then your individual platforms become significantly cheaper (albeit less capable.)

 

[Dragon029]

Regarding DEW; I really wouldn't be surprised if the NGB / LRS-B is the first operational aircraft with that capability; if we were to assume it's a flying wing, a tad smaller than the B-2; then systems similar to Northrop Grumman's FIRESTRIKE would almost certainly fit into the bomb bay ( / internal spaces); if you tap it into some powerful engines (non-AB F135 derivative?), you should be able to get the power to run it as desired as well.

Considering that the NGB is intended to be optionally-manned later in life, that'd fit the concept well.

 

[Sundog]

Another reason I think optionally manned is a good idea is deployment, but that would be more a USAF problem than one for the Navy. All of the pilots could ride in the tanker while the fighters followed, unmanned, during their deployment to another airfield. That way pilots wouldn't have to spend 16 hours cramped up in a fighter cockpit.

 

[yasotay]

Another reason I think optionally manned is a good idea is deployment, but that would be more a USAF problem than one for the Navy. All of the pilots could ride in the tanker while the fighters followed, unmanned, during their deployment to another airfield. That way pilots wouldn't have to spend 16 hours cramped up in a fighter cockpit.

I would agree if one can be 100% sure that the enemy cannot introduce malware into the aircraft. It would be very embarrassing to have an entire squadron of uber-fighters roll over and plow into the ocean in the middle of the deployment.

 

[sferrin]

Another reason I think optionally manned is a good idea is deployment, but that would be more a USAF problem than one for the Navy. All of the pilots could ride in the tanker while the fighters followed, unmanned, during their deployment to another airfield. That way pilots wouldn't have to spend 16 hours cramped up in a fighter cockpit.

I would agree if one can be 100% sure that the enemy cannot introduce malware into the aircraft. It would be very embarrassing to have an entire squadron of uber-fighters roll over and plow into the ocean in the middle of the deployment.

Or worse, land at the other guy's airbase.

 

[Triton]

"Major Work to Replace Navy’s Super Hornet to Start in 2015"
by Dave Majumdar
Thursday, December 26, 2013

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2013/12/26/major-work-replace-navys-super-hornet-start-2015

The U.S. Navy expects to undertake an analysis of alternatives (AoA) for its F/A-XX next-generation replacement for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet starting in fiscal year 2015.

The new aircraft and its associated “family of systems” would be expected to become operational around 2035.

“We’re doing study work right now to neck down what it is that we’re going to spend our money on in the analysis of alternatives,” Rear Adm. Mike Manazir told USNI News on Dec. 20.
“But at the beginning of fiscal year ’15, we will start that analysis of alternatives, which will then start the acquisition process to get an airplane in 2030.”

The Navy does not yet know what kind of aircraft the F/A-XX will be, but the service is working on defining exactly what capabilities it will need when the Super Hornet fleet starts to exhaust their 9,000-hour airframe lives around 2035.

“Right now our effort is take the F/A-18E/F off and list everything you lose,” Manazir said. “Now, how do you service that?”

For example, the Super Hornet is regularly used as a tanker. But if another jet like the Navy’s future Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft can fulfill that role—and sufficient numbers of that aircraft are procured—the F/A-XX would not be required perform the aerial refueling tanker mission.

Though the Navy does not yet have a concrete vision for what the F/A-XX might ultimately turn out to be, there are certain attributes the service must have.

“You have to have something that carries missiles, you have to have something that has enough power and cooling for directed energy weapons and you have to have something that has a weapons system that can sense the smallest radar cross-section targets,” Manazir said. The F/A-XX family of systems might also incorporate the use of cyber warfare capabilities at a tactical level.

The Navy would develop the F/A-XX having fully understood the capabilities the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter and UCLASS bring to the carrier air wing.

“We’re looking to replace the F/A-18E/F with an understanding already of what the F-35C has brought to the air wing, what the UCLASS mission set is,” Manazir said.
The Navy is working very closely with the U.S. Air Force—which is working on its own F-X replacement for the Lockheed F-22 Raptor–on developing the F/A-XX.

“We’re completely stitched together with the Air Force,” Manazir said. “We’re looking at joint capabilities and cooperative capabilities that would be the same in the airframe.”
The Air Force and Navy aircraft would share weapons and sensor technologies, even if they are different airframes. One particular area of close cooperation is aircraft propulsion where the two services are collaborating on advanced variable-cycle engine technology.

“We’re very cooperative on engine technology,” Manazir said. “Of course, they want to go long distances very fast, and so their airframe looks a little different from ours. We want to have those same attributes, but we have to get in on and off the carrier.”

But ultimately whatever the F/A-XX turns out to be, it will be designed defeat most dangerous of adversaries anywhere on the globe.

“We definitely need to maintain overmatch of the adversary by bringing those effects to the battlespace with whatever is on the aircraft carrier,” Manazir said.

 

[sublight_]

“We’re completely stitched together with the Air Force,” Manazir said. “We’re looking at joint capabilities and cooperative capabilities that would be the same in the airframe.”

Are they kidding? The last ten thousand times the Navy and the Air Force had joint projects they ended in messy divorces... There is just too much institutionalized hatred between those branches to actually get anything done.

 

[Triton]

Are they kidding? The last ten thousand times the Navy and the Air Force had joint projects they ended in messy divorces... There is just too much institutionalized hatred between those branches to actually get anything done.

They realize, however much their needs may differ, that joint projects are more difficult to cancel.

 

[sferrin]

Are they kidding? The last ten thousand times the Navy and the Air Force had joint projects they ended in messy divorces... There is just too much institutionalized hatred between those branches to actually get anything done.

They realize, however much their needs may differ, that joint projects are more difficult to cancel.

Actually, they realize, however much their needs may differ, IF THEY WANT ANYTHING AT ALL, it needs to be joint. There simply isn't enough money for a single-service, single-mission, fighter. No way can the USN afford an aircraft that would make the F-22 look cheap.

 

[bobbymike]

Are they kidding? The last ten thousand times the Navy and the Air Force had joint projects they ended in messy divorces... There is just too much institutionalized hatred between those branches to actually get anything done.

They realize, however much their needs may differ, that joint projects are more difficult to cancel.

Actually, they realize, however much their needs may differ, IF THEY WANT ANYTHING AT ALL, it needs to be joint. There simply isn't enough money for a single-service, single-mission, fighter. No way can the USN afford an aircraft that would make the F-22 look cheap.

Exactly right because you also have SSNB(X) spending ramping up right at the same time. That why some have been pushing for SSBN(X) to be a separate DOD funding item not Navy alone. I would suggest all nuke programs be funded this way by a Nuclear Deterrence Agency but don't want to get off topic here.

 

[BDF]

Of course, they [the USAF] want to go long distances very fast, and so their airframe looks a little different from ours......

An interesting anecdote of what the USAF is looking for. I can't help but imagine it will be a big jet. Maybe F-111 big. I'm hoping they are able to develop a laser capable of killing enemy air out to BVR ranges. That plus a very stealthy long ranged platform would constitute the next revolution in fighter technology IMO.

 

[sferrin]

If they decide UCLASS is going to be X-47B-ish then maybe they'll get something the USAF wants. If their F/A-XX has to double as a tanker then probably not. The USAF needs something like a stealthy F-108 for the Pacific theater. Lots of range, performance, payload, with less emphasis on supermanueverability.

 

[Sundog]

This isn't going to be a joint program. There is no way the USAF is going to tolerate any penalty required for naval operations as witnessed by the ATF program. Also, what the USAF needs to operate over the Pacific is almost exactly the opposite of what the USN needs to operate from carriers. This will be staged such the Navy will get their F/A-XX first. The next major fighter program to follow will be the F-22's replacement, which will be a generation beyond the F/A-XX.

 

[Rhinocrates]

"Lots of range, performance, payload, with less emphasis on supermanueverability. "

Which is what this Boeing concept seems to be about:

http://paralay.com/ngf/ngf%20(9).jpg

 

[donnage99]

Its requirement differences and not so much hatred

 

[F-14D]

Are they kidding? The last ten thousand times the Navy and the Air Force had joint projects they ended in messy divorces... There is just too much institutionalized hatred between those branches to actually get anything done.

They realize, however much their needs may differ, that joint projects are more difficult to cancel.

Actually, they realize, however much their needs may differ, IF THEY WANT ANYTHING AT ALL, it needs to be joint. There simply isn't enough money for a single-service, single-mission, fighter. No way can the USN afford an aircraft that would make the F-22 look cheap.

Don't want to take this too much off topic, but there is some interesting data on this. Back when the FX and VFX were first being mooted, Congress was wondering about developing a joint fighter rather than two, even with the F-111 debacle still fresh in everyone's mind. Studies at the time showed that it would be more expensive to build one plane to handle both services' needs than to build two fighters.

Recently, the RAND corporation was commissioned to do a similar examination today. Their analysis showed that measuring cost growth between start of FSD and service entry, in almost all cases joint programs had higher cost growth. In all cases, the life cycle cost of joint programs was higher than single-service developed programs. Before someone brings up the F-4 or A-7, remember those were single service Navy programs adopted intact by USAF.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but then many people think so is a helicopter.

 

[sferrin]

So where were all these studies when the JSF was being brain-stormed? And does anybody REALLY believe that the F-35B wouldn't have already been cancelled if it were it's own program? (Assuming it ever got started in the first place.)

 

[F-14D]

So where were all these studies when the JSF was being brain-stormed? And does anybody REALLY believe that the F-35B wouldn't have already been cancelled if it were it's own program? (Assuming it ever got started in the first place.)

Well, Congress was one of the big drivers behind JSF ("don't bother me with facts"), along with technological optimism that with our advanced computer simulations, construction and management techniques, the old rules didn't apply. The F-35 has actually not had a disproportionate number of problems, it's just that we assumed that there would be far fewer problems than previously encountered, so we'd save a boodle, and could go with massive concurrency. For example, I believe F-35 production so far will soon pass the total number of Rafales produced, yet is still years away from delivering an operational aircraft, and almost all of those previously delivered F-35s will have to come back for significant modification, which is one of the things driving the costs up. What we're learning is that the old rules still do apply, it's following the same path we've seen before.

As far as a Harrier replacement being its own program being canceled, I'm not so sure because such an aircraft would not have been as complex/expensive or needed all the things that are on the F-35B because the latter is a joint program.

 

[GTX]

...nd almost all of those previously delivered F-35s will have to come back for significant modification, which is one of the things driving the costs up...

The concurrency issue is a 'red herring' IMHO. I am not saying it doesn't exist but because it is something not fully determined (all the numbers given to date are estimates and they are usually on the high side for reasons previously stated) and it won't be until the actual updates are undertaken, people are using it as an easy thing to write negative things about the F-35 without a worry of being disproven for years...just the way they like it! :

 

[sferrin]

As far as a Harrier replacement being its own program being canceled, I'm not so sure because such an aircraft would not have been as complex/expensive or needed all the things that are on the F-35B because the latter is a joint program.

A unique STOVL stealth fighter design with only 340 units (tops) would be affordable? I'm finding it difficult to believe it would ever make it off paper.