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

[XP67_Moonbat]

This argument is still grasping at straws.

 

[bring_it_on]

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is looking at systems for sixth-generation fighters where the laser modules would be distributed throughout the aircraft and the beams routed by fibers through the tight confines of the airframe to a conformal array on the fuselage surface

As it begins building the Army system, Lockheed is studying how the fiber-laser technology can be applied to other requirements. “We are looking at how we could package the system into a weapons module for the Littoral Combat Ship or into a pod for an aircraft, as well as Army tactical vehicles,” he says.

One potential application is AFRL’s planned Self-Protected High-Energy Laser Demonstration (Shield), for which a solicitation is expected shortly. Shield aims to demo an anti-missile self-defense pod for fighters by 2020 and a longer-range, 100-kW system by 2022. The Air Force wants the laser technology for a self-defense pod to be scalable to an offensive weapon that can be carried by larger aircraft, beginning with special-operations gunships.

“The Shield technology level we can do now,” says Afzal. “We would look at modifications to make it more relevant to the Air Force, but it is not a next-generation system.” But the key issue could be maturity of the fiber-laser technology versus other solid-state electric lasers. Army trials of the 60-kW system will take Lockheed’s technology to TRL 6, “arguably TRL 7 depending on how they use the system and if they do tactical engagements,” he says. The race is on.

http://aviationweek.com/technology/inside-lockheed-martin-s-fiber-laser-weapon

 

[sferrin]

Also, with regard to JSF, orginally LM and Northrop were awarded contracts to study shaft driven lift fan technology versus tip driven fan technology. Normally, the government would fund such research, put together the findings, and distribute them to the industry and then ask for designs. Instead, the technology demonstration program turned into a production program instead of a research program and when Northrop realized the penalties were too high for tip driven fan technology they switched to the separate lift engine design which wasn't considered part of the program. From my perspective, that isn't competitive design selection, that's rigged from the start. It isn't any different then telling the companies they have to use different engines for their designs.

Why couldn't NG use a shaft driven lift fan? Oh right, because Lockheed invented the thing. : The whole "rigged from the start" nonsense is pretty much tinfoil hat territory.

No, it wasn't invented by L-M. There was plenty of research into them well before the JSF program and the demonstrators and test models were government funded, not privately funded. So, nice try.

That must be why Lockheed and Bevilaqua got the patent. http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/5209428.html Even that aside there's nothing saying NG HAD to use a tip-driven fan (because their JSF proposal didn't use one). There is no basis in fact for a "rigged" game.

 

[Triton]

F-35B Propulsion Story

Uploaded on Apr 17, 2008

Meet the inventor, Paul Bevilaqua of the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing lift fan propulsion system.

https://youtu.be/w_Iw3Z6Dh8g

 

[Steve Pace]

Way Cool! -SP

 

[Sundog]

Also, with regard to JSF, orginally LM and Northrop were awarded contracts to study shaft driven lift fan technology versus tip driven fan technology. Normally, the government would fund such research, put together the findings, and distribute them to the industry and then ask for designs. Instead, the technology demonstration program turned into a production program instead of a research program and when Northrop realized the penalties were too high for tip driven fan technology they switched to the separate lift engine design which wasn't considered part of the program. From my perspective, that isn't competitive design selection, that's rigged from the start. It isn't any different then telling the companies they have to use different engines for their designs.

Why couldn't NG use a shaft driven lift fan? Oh right, because Lockheed invented the thing. : The whole "rigged from the start" nonsense is pretty much tinfoil hat territory.

No, it wasn't invented by L-M. There was plenty of research into them well before the JSF program and the demonstrators and test models were government funded, not privately funded. So, nice try.

That must be why Lockheed and Bevilaqua got the patent. http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/5209428.html Even that aside there's nothing saying NG HAD to use a tip-driven fan (because their JSF proposal didn't use one). There is no basis in fact for a "rigged" game.

Actually the patent doesn't really mean anything, based on what we were arguing, as another company could develop it's own shaft driven system. However, you were absolutely right about the development on this and I was wrong. I remember seeing these concepts way back in school back in the mid to late 80's, well before JSF, but I hadn't realized Belivaqua was the one who was responsible for those concepts as well (I've done a lot of research on it since my last post). I thought they were just generic STOVL ideas being looked at by industry. I'm shocked that it took that long to come up with the idea, as I would have thought this would have been looked into the 70's once powerplants began developing very high thrust to weight ratios.

 

[bring_it_on]

^^ This paper sheds more light on the development -

https://www.scribd.com/doc/284662003/PaulB-F35

 

[Dragon029]

Paul did a great touring lecture as well last year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-cfy-k_8ew

 

[galgot]

F-35B Propulsion Story

Uploaded on Apr 17, 2008

Meet the inventor, Paul Bevilaqua of the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing lift fan propulsion system.

https://youtu.be/w_Iw3Z6Dh8g

Yeah it's nice.
Is JSF really the first aircraft to Takeoff on short distance, go supersonic, then come back and land vertically ?

 

[sferrin]

IIRC neither the Mirage IIIV or Yak-41 did short takeoffs. (There's no physical reason they couldn't, I just don't recall them ever doing it with them.)

 

[sferrin]

Also, with regard to JSF, orginally LM and Northrop were awarded contracts to study shaft driven lift fan technology versus tip driven fan technology. Normally, the government would fund such research, put together the findings, and distribute them to the industry and then ask for designs. Instead, the technology demonstration program turned into a production program instead of a research program and when Northrop realized the penalties were too high for tip driven fan technology they switched to the separate lift engine design which wasn't considered part of the program. From my perspective, that isn't competitive design selection, that's rigged from the start. It isn't any different then telling the companies they have to use different engines for their designs.

Why couldn't NG use a shaft driven lift fan? Oh right, because Lockheed invented the thing. : The whole "rigged from the start" nonsense is pretty much tinfoil hat territory.

No, it wasn't invented by L-M. There was plenty of research into them well before the JSF program and the demonstrators and test models were government funded, not privately funded. So, nice try.

That must be why Lockheed and Bevilaqua got the patent. http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/5209428.html Even that aside there's nothing saying NG HAD to use a tip-driven fan (because their JSF proposal didn't use one). There is no basis in fact for a "rigged" game.

Actually the patent doesn't really mean anything, based on what we were arguing, as another company could develop it's own shaft driven system.

So NG could have done a shaft driven lift fan if they'd wanted to. BTW I can sort of see why it took so long to consider a shaft driven lift fan. It's a lot of power to transfer and a driveshaft and gear box would be heavy, and they didn't have fighter-sized engines with enough power.

 

[TomS]

The Yak-41 did a lot of rolling STO, some supersonic flight, and plenty of vertical landings, but I don't think they ever put the three elements -- rolling short takeoff, supersonic dash, and vertical landing -- together like the X-35 did.

 

[galgot]

IIRC neither the Mirage IIIV or Yak-41 did short takeoffs. (There's no physical reason they couldn't, I just don't recall them ever doing it with them.)

Here at 1:00 the Balzac V make a STO :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvv6PZtDaLg
But the Balzac V was subsonic… true didn't found any vids of the Mirage IIIV doing it, but don't see why it couldn't.
Anyway all these are prototypes.

 

[FighterJock]

Try this video, this is the Short SC.1 probably the ancestor of the F-35B and indeed the Harrier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_I6LzEON2A

 

[AeroFranz]

IIRC neither the Mirage IIIV or Yak-41 did short takeoffs. (There's no physical reason they couldn't, I just don't recall them ever doing it with them.)

Here at 1:00 the Balzac V make a STO :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvv6PZtDaLg
But the Balzac V was subsonic… true didn't found any vids of the Mirage IIIV doing it, but don't see why it couldn't.
Anyway all these are prototypes.

Marketing BS. Both types mentioned above could have done it as well, albeit with a very limited supersonic segment, is my guess.

 

[sferrin]

Marketing BS. Both types mentioned above could have done it as well, albeit with a very limited supersonic segment, is my guess.

Did somebody say they couldn't have?

 

[SpudmanWP]

The only reason that I can think of as to why they couldn't have is maybe a fuel issue.

 

[FighterJock]

I think that the Mirage 3V could have gone supersonic, it certainaly had the looks for supersonic flight. But the Shorts SC-1 was only ment for subsonic flight being a technology demonstrator.

 

[galgot]

Mirage IIIV still holds the record for the fastest VTOL, Mach 2.04 .

 

[FighterJock]

Mirage IIIV still holds the record for the fastest VTOL, Mach 2.04 .

When did the Mirage IIIV go supersonic? I am guesing somewhere around 1960s?

 

[galgot]

Yes, 12th september 1966.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_III_V#Le_Mirage_III_V

 

[AeroFranz]

Marketing BS. Both types mentioned above could have done it as well, albeit with a very limited supersonic segment, is my guess.

Did somebody say they couldn't have?

Nope. I take issue with marketing people making a big deal about it, considering there was no reason it couldn't have been done fifty years ago, other than it's an irrelevant stunt. The very vast majority of the public has limited knowledge of relatively obscure VTOL history and is likely to believe it's a breakthrough. It's not.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Was it ever done before? No
Do we know why it was never done? No
Did the X-35 do something that had never been done before? Yes

It's not "Marketing BS" if it demonstrated the F-35B's operational capabilities.

 

[AeroFranz]

no need to get defensive. You hinted at what the problem is, fuel fraction. I don't know how far an F-35 can go whilst supersonic, but VTOL trends point at smaller fuel fractions than CTOL. Ergo the VTOL pilot will have to be less cavalier with turning dinosaurs into heat and noise than his CTOL colleague.

 

[sferrin]

Marketing BS. Both types mentioned above could have done it as well, albeit with a very limited supersonic segment, is my guess.

Did somebody say they couldn't have?

Nope. I take issue with marketing people making a big deal about it, considering there was no reason it couldn't have been done fifty years ago, other than it's an irrelevant stunt. The very vast majority of the public has limited knowledge of relatively obscure VTOL history and is likely to believe it's a breakthrough. It's not.

Kind of like that whole "omnirole" nonsense.

 

[bring_it_on]

Could we shift all this to the F-35 thread?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

For f**ks sake, PLEASE already!!!

 

[flateric]

...

 

[bobbymike]

flateric - Very nice what's that from?

 

[flateric]

you will not believe it - its from the LM site

 

[Steve Pace]

you will not believe it - its from the LM site

I don't see it there. -SP

 

[bring_it_on]

INVENT ―Tip-to-Tail Energy/Engine/Power/Thermal Modeling, Simulation, & Analysis.


https://www.scribd.com/doc/285020120/Invent-AFRL

 

[mz]

you will not believe it - its from the LM site

The wing can't be all triangular, has to be a little bit lambda - otherwise it'd be quite close to F-23 shape...

 

[TomS]

you will not believe it - its from the LM site

I don't see it there. -SP

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/aeronautics/skunkworks/onestepahead/tweets-from-future.html

 

[sferrin]

you will not believe it - its from the LM site

The wing can't be all triangular, has to be a little bit lambda - otherwise it'd be quite close to F-23 shape...

Aside from the butterfly tail there's nothing the same.

 

[Steve Pace]

Thank you.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-militarys-6th-generation-fighter-5-ways-dominate-the-14091

 

[kagemusha]

Propulsion Integration for Future Air Dominance

https://evt.grc.nasa.gov/swbli-2015/files/1.1-SPIRIT_for_SBLI_Meeting_14Apr15.pptx

 

[Sundog]

Propulsion Integration for Future Air Dominance

https://evt.grc.nasa.gov/swbli-2015/files/1.1-SPIRIT_for_SBLI_Meeting_14Apr15.pptx

That was excellent, though there wasn't much detail on some of the concepts they are looking at. However, it's obvious they want to be able to shorten the length of the duct and use sharper turns while achieving better pressure recovery in the subsonic section of the inlet and finding better methods of increasing the pressure recovery/reducing spillage in the supersonic section with better boundary layer control. I would love to have seen the YF-23 inlet performance on that chart, as it seems it's inlet addressed some of the issues they're having with the full serpentine ducts in the F-22 and F-35.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Article in Flight Global about Northrop Grumman's NGAD programme, specifically about laser weapons and thermal management. The highlight is a fairly decent, clear image of the current concept.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/northrop-beating-heat-leads-sixth-generation-fighte-420006/

Lasers have only about a third efficiency meaning that for every MW or directed energy, there's 2MW of heat to deal with. Venting it quickly means ruining IR stealth, so accumulators storing the energy and trickling it out later have been considered, but N-G has another idea that they're not talking about...