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

[sferrin]

More likely it was the intern tasked with making the powerpoint who put the placeholder artwork in it.

 

[seruriermarshal]

More likely it was the intern tasked with making the powerpoint who put the placeholder artwork in it.

He used MQ-25s (with AIM-120s) too .

 

[Colonial-Marine]

sensors, missiles, DEW defense, UCRAV mothership, buildability, maintainability, cost efectiveness are the mainshows now, not stealth, which is increasingly countered and at longer ranges.

FWIW Trimble ((at)TheDEWLine) seems to have subsequently tweeted: "OPNAV said in May 2019 that they don't have a requirement for penetrating stealth and that they're fine with vertical tails." I do not know how definitive a statement that may have been or whether it still holds.

Seems NAVAIR is as clueless as they ever have been if they really think stealth isn't a necessity for such an aircraft. Of course it isn't the silver bullet it once was but you still want a minimal RCS in conjunction with everything else to make sure your fighter is survivable.

Or maybe I am misreading it and they are instead stating they want a good compromise between stealth and agility and will therefore accept the sort of design solutions we've seen on the F-22, F-35, and various other aircraft. That is entirely understandable although I think something along the lines of the V-tail on the F-23 would be the better solution going forward.

 

[skyblue]

More likely it was the intern tasked with making the powerpoint who put the placeholder artwork in it.

He used MQ-25s (with AIM-120s) too .

That's embarrassing, something we would more typically expect from the Chinese

 

[bring_it_on]

The unmanned vehicle launching air to air weapons in there is basically indicating that FA-XX Increment 1 and 2 is part of a NGAD family of systems that includes unmanned. They are just using MQ-25 as a placeholder for the unmanned component. There is also nothing stopping the Navy from integrating missiles on a MQ-25 if it wanted so I wouldn't ding them for that. It was amusing to see the usual blogs get some mileage out of placeholder images only for it to be based on a short internet search (most likely).

 

[bring_it_on]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-MpTfTzyk

 

[Bounce]

I assume the video is still processing and 360p isn't final? Interesting bird.

 

[John21]

I assume the video is still processing and 360p isn't final? Interesting bird.

I’ve been having MAJOR issues with this same thing, using either WiFi or LTE or 4g.....YouTube videos are extremely low resolution and slow to load and frequent pauses. Glad I’m not the only one noticing this...

 

[UpForce]

(NG "Welcome to Northrop Grumman" -video)

That thing flying in the background looks a lot like the recent sightings of "RQ-180", "Shikaka", or whatever it is.

 

[Manuducati]

Disclaimer: newbie opinion only.

As Northrop-Grumman already has the B-21 contract (and some UAV ones) going for the USAF, I don't see them getting the NGAD as well. Kind of the ATB/ATF scenario and "don't put all your eggs in one basket" way of thinking.

F/A-XX on the other hand, and following the success of the (strangely not pursued) X-47B demonstrator... Note that their unknown design has a beefy landing gear. And yes I know, it's just a public relations rendering.

 

[doggedman]

Despite your 'newbie' claim, I think there is some historical precedent supporting your "all your eggs" thesis. Back in the day (the 1990s), Northrop had the B-2 contract and the Tri-Service Stand-off Attack Missile (TSAM). TSAM was arguably one of the larger missile contracts at that time. I recall the press speculation ahead of the YF-22/YF-23 decision was that since Northrop had the bomber and the missile, it was unlikely that they'd also get the fighter. Now things have changed quite a bit since the 1990s. Does anyone else think that this is Deja-vu all over again?

 

[torginus]

I wonder what are the respective advantages/disadvantages of placing the intakes above the wing. My guess would be that over-wing intakes get starved of air at high angles of attack, due to the body of the aircraft being in the way.
On the other hand, they probably create a low-pressure zone on the top of the wing, due to them accelerating the air, which means they contribute to lift.

 

[flateric]

note B-21 lurking around

 

[BDF]

I wonder what are the respective advantages/disadvantages of placing the intakes above the wing. My guess would be that over-wing intakes get starved of air at high angles of attack, due to the body of the aircraft being in the way.
On the other hand, they probably create a low-pressure zone on the top of the wing, due to them accelerating the air, which means they contribute to lift.

Its purely for LO considerations. Broadband LO generally requires the intakes to be placed inside the perimeter and on top. This drawing appears to be another view of that model they released some time ago.

 

[apparition13]

Disclaimer: newbie opinion only.

As Northrop-Grumman already has the B-21 contract (and some UAV ones) going for the USAF, I don't see them getting the NGAD as well. Kind of the ATB/ATF scenario and "don't put all your eggs in one basket" way of thinking.

F/A-XX on the other hand, and following the success of the (strangely not pursued) X-47B demonstrator... Note that their unknown design has a beefy landing gear. And yes I know, it's just a public relations rendering.

I'd actually be surprised if NG doesn't get it. One of the reasons that has been on occasion mooted about for Northrop's YF-23 not being selected was program management experience. Yet Lockheed went way over with the F-22, is doing even worse with the F-35, and Boeing hasn't exactly shined with the KC-46. Meanwhile NG is on time and budget for B-21.

I suspect the Services, the DoD, and Congress are entirely fed up with Lockheed, and are looking askance at Boeing and their problems with both commercial and military products. Hell, at this point I suspect that if Textron decided to team with Sukhoi to build an "F-57" in the U.S. there would be mad rush to buy them just so they could return the favor and screw Lockheed over by cancelling the F-35.

But with the B-21 cruising along (so far) NG looks to be in the driver's seat to me. Even if the idea of a Cessna F-57 tickles the hell out of me.

 

[Zoomer]

Where are the vertical fins? Retractable maybe? I cannot imagine it's a sub sonic fighter jet. Supersonic speeds are very hard (if not impossible) without a vertical stabilizer. And don't get me started on maneuverability. Yes it's great for all aspect stealth and it won't ever get into a dogfight, but one of the fighter's missions is interception. I guess you can send the F-35 for those missions.

A flying wing design with 2 retractable fins will be the best of both worlds imo.

 

[torginus]

Disclaimer: newbie opinion only.

As Northrop-Grumman already has the B-21 contract (and some UAV ones) going for the USAF, I don't see them getting the NGAD as well. Kind of the ATB/ATF scenario and "don't put all your eggs in one basket" way of thinking.

F/A-XX on the other hand, and following the success of the (strangely not pursued) X-47B demonstrator... Note that their unknown design has a beefy landing gear. And yes I know, it's just a public relations rendering.

I'd actually be surprised if NG doesn't get it. One of the reasons that has been on occasion mooted about for Northrop's YF-23 not being selected was program management experience. Yet Lockheed went way over with the F-22, is doing even worse with the F-35, and Boeing hasn't exactly shined with the KC-46. Meanwhile NG is on time and budget for B-21.

I suspect the Services, the DoD, and Congress are entirely fed up with Lockheed, and are looking askance at Boeing and their problems with both commercial and military products. Hell, at this point I suspect that if Textron decided to team with Sukhoi to build an "F-57" in the U.S. there would be mad rush to buy them just so they could return the favor and screw Lockheed over by cancelling the F-35.

But with the B-21 cruising along (so far) NG looks to be in the driver's seat to me. Even if the idea of a Cessna F-57 tickles the hell out of me.

I feel like the B-21 being on time and budget, especially compared to the F-35 is due to it not having a laundy list of conflicting requirements generated by not only the 3 branches, but also half the Western world, while simultaneously being the testbed of a new paradigm of aircraft.

Imo, if Lockheed mismanagement or not, the F-35 program was doomed to be a horrorshow the day the requirements were laid down.

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

Hello!!!
The sixth generation fighter that can be seen in the video, has dual wheels on the front landing gear, and this one is reinforced. With which, it could be a concept for the F/A-XX. But on the other hand, it looks very bulky for a carrier-board fighter, and the dual forward landing gear could be due to its weight and size. Perhaps it is a concept for the Pacific version of the next NGAD, which would have a greater range and weight, and therefore has air intakes in the upper part of the fuselage.
If indeed the NGAD will have two variants, most likely the short-range and fighting-oriented version, it will have air intakes at the bottom.
It is just an opinion.
Regards!
Rodrigo

 

[flateric]

it's nothing more than cartoon

 

[Geo]

The young lady who opens the door is quite pretty. But the lower back of the young designer also attracts attention. Overall an interesting video, but only for one viewing.

 

[flateric]

of note Model 437 nose too

 

[In_A_Dream]

Full video:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af0y_8_T6gU

 

[Sundog]

Where are the vertical fins? Retractable maybe? I cannot imagine it's a sub sonic fighter jet. Supersonic speeds are very hard (if not impossible) without a vertical stabilizer. And don't get me started on maneuverability. Yes it's great for all aspect stealth and it won't ever get into a dogfight, but one of the fighter's missions is interception. I guess you can send the F-35 for those missions.

A flying wing design with 2 retractable fins will be the best of both worlds imo.

As it turns out, we have advanced flight controls and FCS that allow tailless aircraft to maneuver. See the X-36.

 

[pedrospe]

Where are the vertical fins? Retractable maybe? I cannot imagine it's a sub sonic fighter jet. Supersonic speeds are very hard (if not impossible) without a vertical stabilizer. And don't get me started on maneuverability. Yes it's great for all aspect stealth and it won't ever get into a dogfight, but one of the fighter's missions is interception. I guess you can send the F-35 for those missions.

A flying wing design with 2 retractable fins will be the best of both worlds imo.

As it turns out, we have advanced flight controls and FCS that allow tailless aircraft to maneuver. See the X-36.

The FATE/ICE program also investigated tailless concepts for fighter aircraft, and the X-36/X-45/X-47 validated many of those flight controls, with great accuracy, even on aircraft carriers, so it's possible to assume, that tailless designs may be the future for fighters and other aircraft.

 

[Hanz2k]

The cockpit glass looks outdated. Visibility outside is bad. Looks more like high speed, high altitude stealth ISR platform. Let’s say Mach 2,5 without after burning. That’s why inlets are above.

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

it's nothing more than cartoon

Hi!
A few years ago I was in contact with some former engineers and designers at Nortrhop, as I wanted to know a little better about the design and development process that they follow.
The people I spoke to were really very nice, and they told me about the methods they use.
As in any design process, the first ideas are carried out using 2D drawings (at the time on paper, now surely using digitizing tablets).
Some of those ideas, which have more potential than others, are modeled in 3D using the Houdini program (as far as I know, Lockheed uses that too). Basically, it is a polygonal modeling program, like 3D Studio, Cinema 4D, Blender or Maya. But the advantage of the Houdini is that it is highly procedural and allows you to modify parameters without having to redo the entire model.
Then, the models with the most potential are taken from Houdini to Catia, to be "redrawn" by the engineers in that program, and they can be examined and evaluated more exhaustively.
Making a model in 3D with the level of detail that the plane in the video has, takes time (and a lot).
From what I think, what we see when a company shows these types of concepts, are ideas that passed a first cut (from 2D to 3D), but then fell by the wayside, and that find a fairly honorable life as promotional material . After all, these companies must have many archived 3D models that can perfectly be used in this type of promotional material.
They are probably among the first ideas to be cut, and that the designs in development have nothing to do with what they show.
Therefore, they must be a good sample to know what they are not doing.
Regards!

 

[Geo]

Interesting! Thanks, Rodrigo.

 

[red admiral]

In my experience the communications departments have their own graphic designers who have zero contact with engineering so there is basically nothing you can learn apart from what their Comms department think is cool

 

[flateric]

Worth posting again

Aerospace Weapons of Mass Marketing

Secret warplane design shops hire teams of artists to generate images of future aircraft that the press and aviation-minded public then obsess over. But who are the real targets of this marketing, and how reliable are the images?

www.popularmechanics.com

 

[dark sidius]

It is me or it look that the Northrop 6th gen fighter seem to have Navy landing gear , and Navy front gear ?

 

[sferrin]

It is me or it look that the Northrop 6th gen fighter seem to have Navy landing gear , and Navy front gear ?

It's not real. It's not even a real concept.

 

[Fluff]

It is me or it look that the Northrop 6th gen fighter seem to have Navy landing gear , and Navy front gear ?

Not going to be good for RCS, 2 pizza dishes facing sideways in the front fuselage....

 

[NeilChapman]

PS: NGAD's engine development still appears to be diminishing returns not worth the investment. hopefully a revolution in the classifed world, otherwise it is industrial Welfare.

This is major news to me re a decade long program.

Please elaborate.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Even engineers get hungry on the job but hiding the evidence needs thought.

 

[Dreamfighter]

It is me or it look that the Northrop 6th gen fighter seem to have Navy landing gear , and Navy front gear ?

It's not real. It's not even a real concept.

On the other hand, all the other exotic planes shown (model 437, X-47B, B-21 and 'RQ-180') are/were real concepts.

 

[sferrin]

It is me or it look that the Northrop 6th gen fighter seem to have Navy landing gear , and Navy front gear ?

It's not real. It's not even a real concept.

On the other hand, all the other exotic planes shown (model 437, X-47B, B-21 and 'RQ-180') are/were real concepts.

That's not what we're talking about though, is it?

 

[Dreamfighter]

It is me or it look that the Northrop 6th gen fighter seem to have Navy landing gear , and Navy front gear ?

It's not real. It's not even a real concept.

On the other hand, all the other exotic planes shown (model 437, X-47B, B-21 and 'RQ-180') are/were real concepts.

That's not what we're talking about though, is it?

Exactly, "what we are talking about" is the 'odd one' in that video.
My point is all the other aircraft shown once started their (embryonic) life as an artistic rendering or as concept art, and that they all progressed beyond that phase. And perhaps therefore it shouldn´t just be ruled out completely that is (or was) also the case for the 'odd one'. Which still doesn´t mean the 'odd one' would be an F/A-XX or NGAD. But which could be a reason to show them all together in the same video. Sometimes people like to show there accomplishments in a promotional video. But I´m well aware people sometimes also share videos containing mainly disinformation or other bullshit.

 

[sferrin]

It is me or it look that the Northrop 6th gen fighter seem to have Navy landing gear , and Navy front gear ?

It's not real. It's not even a real concept.

On the other hand, all the other exotic planes shown (model 437, X-47B, B-21 and 'RQ-180') are/were real concepts.

That's not what we're talking about though, is it?

Exactly, "what we are talking about" is the 'odd one' in that video.
My point is all the other aircraft shown once started their (embryonic) life as an artistic rendering or as concept art, and that they all progressed beyond that phase. And perhaps therefore it shouldn´t just be ruled out completely that is (or was) also the case for the 'odd one'. Which still doesn´t mean the 'odd one' would be an F/A-XX or NGAD. But which could be a reason to show them all together in the same video. Sometimes people like to show there accomplishments in a promotional video. But I´m well aware people sometimes also share videos containing mainly disinformation or other bullshit.

"It's not real. It's not even a real concept."

Then the point stands, doesn't it?

 

[In_A_Dream]

Then the point stands, doesn't it?

You're drawing people into a pointless argument. Most of this thread is filled with speculation as the details of the 6th gen programs are classified. It's no different than speculating over the numerous other things that have been covered in the past.

 

[flateric]

lol