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

Could someone please explain why we still need vertical fins for the next gen? X36, B2 and numerous UAVs don't need them. Isn't super stealth, one of the goals of the next gen? Turning would be difficult yes, but it doesn't matter. Even supercruise is not desirable because of the IR signature. Am I missing something?
 
Zoomer said:
Could someone please explain why we still need vertical fins for the next gen? X36, B2 and numerous UAVs don't need them. Isn't super stealth, one of the goals of the next gen? Turning would be difficult yes, but it doesn't matter. Even supercruise is not desirable because of the IR signature. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Cause stuff like turning fast and sprinting is still considered as needed things for FIGHTERS.

Everyone who is able to, are making their own stealth craft.

Meaning the BVR ONLY hopes...

Are still only hopes, closer then they were before.

But once you factor in ROEs, Enemy EWAR, their own Stealthing and good old murphy..

Odds are that the old WVR Dogfighting will still be a thing. So you still need to be pretty agile to do so.

While the X36 can do it tailless, you still need pretty hefty vertical stabilizion for ANY amount of Supersonic speeds, which is very much a hard requirement. All the systems you mention are strickly subsonic craft, so they can do things without a vertical fin. But since a fighter will probably need to sprint away at Mach 1.5 minimum...

It going to need a design able to do so, meaning a Vertical Stabilizer is needed.
 
You'll probably still see some form of vert stabilizer on the Loyal Wingmen aircraft that are meant to be Agile Escorts/Air Dominance in support of NGAD. The C2 Hive-brains (PCA, B-21, etc) will probably be less agile and rely more on absolute stealth for their survivability while their kids do the fighting far and ahead.
 
You can offset the need of verticals to a certain point fully aerodynamically with what I named years ago differential camber variation.

Airfoil Camber affects lift as we all know but also the position of the center of pressure. Hence a differential variation of camber across the longitudinal plan will induce a yaw moment that is higher the more the chord length (hence the resurgence of deltas).

Today with effectors the variation of surface flows produces the same yaw effect, given that the local flow can be accelerated positively or negatively on a ctrld manner effectively on large surfaces.

B/w IMOHO Su-57 already uses diffrencial camber variation (mechanically) through its Levcons.
 
Last edited:
I imagine the NGAD is going to be more like the F-111 in size than the F-22.

news.usni.org

Introduction to the Air Force's Next Generation Air Dominance Program - USNI News

The following is the Congressional Research Service In Focus report, Air Force Next-Generation Air Dominance Program: An Introduction. From the report On September 15, 2020, U.S. Air Force acquisition executive Dr. Will Roper announced that the Air Force had flown a full-scale flight...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
Based on the movements of senior DOD officials, CRS assesses the first flight came on or about August 21, 2020.
Some news sources have referred to this event as the first flight of a new fighter, and speculated as to the design and characteristics of such a fighter
[...]
There appears little reason to assume that
NGAD is going to yield a plane the size that one person sits in, and that goes out and dogfights kinetically, trying to outturn another plane—or that sensors and weapons have to be on the same aircraft
[...]
Ultimately, that vision could result in firms specializing in design that pass their designs to high-tech manufacturing centers capable of producing anything sent to them in
digital form, rather than maintaining dedicated airplane factories. Companies with global logistics chains could be
tasked with the sustainment mission. This reallocation of roles could open Air Force programs to firms that are not traditional military aviation primes.
[...]
This concept complements the Air Force’s other goal, to move from long programs to short runs of different aircraft, theoretically made possible and economical by flexible
production lines. This might lower sustainment costs because they would be replaced by newer designs rather than being kept in service for long periods. This effort is
often referred to as the “digital Century series,” referring to simultaneous Air Force development programs of the 1950s
and 60s.
Click to expand...

Extracts from the congress report linked above (and below).
 

Attachments

  • Air-Force-Next-Generation-Air-Dominance-Program.pdf
    554.2 KB · Views: 46
kagemusha said:
Flyaway said:
I imagine the NGAD is going to be more like the F-111 in size than the F-22.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. If you want both speed and range you need a bigger fighter aircraft with more fuel capacity than the F-22.
Click to expand...

That's assuming you're carrying the same payload and using the same propulsion system. The PCA will be using a more advanced propulsion system, so it won't necessarily need to be larger than the F-22. It's going to come down to, IMHO, how much greater range it will need than the F-22 and what the payload will be. I think the payload could possibly be smaller than that of the F-22's payload, with the advent of unmanned wingman systems and other platforms acting as flying armories. If I understand correctly, the PCA is the fighter component of the NGAD system and I could see it acting as more of a high speed hunter to find and target the enemy, rather then actually engaging them in direct aerial combat. Basically handing what it's targeted off and weapons firing to other systems and only using it's own onboard weapons if it thinks anything is too much of a threat to complete it's own mission.
 
Sundog said:
kagemusha said:
Flyaway said:
I imagine the NGAD is going to be more like the F-111 in size than the F-22.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. If you want both speed and range you need a bigger fighter aircraft with more fuel capacity than the F-22.
Click to expand...

That's assuming you're carrying the same payload and using the same propulsion system. The PCA will be using a more advanced propulsion system, so it won't necessarily need to be larger than the F-22. It's going to come down to, IMHO, how much greater range it will need than the F-22 and what the payload will be. I think the payload could possibly be smaller than that of the F-22's payload, with the advent of unmanned wingman systems and other platforms acting as flying armories. If I understand correctly, the PCA is the fighter component of the NGAD system and I could see it acting as more of a high speed hunter to find and target the enemy, rather then actually engaging them in direct aerial combat. Basically handing what it's targeted off and weapons firing to other systems and only using it's own onboard weapons if it thinks anything is too much of a threat to complete it's own mission.
Click to expand...
I'd wager it would be more XF-108/Blackbird sized (especially if it's going to have a pair of 50,000lb+ engines, and be needed over the Pacific). You can't really have more fuel than an F-22, larger engines, more weapons, and still be smaller than an F-22. (Not unless you have access to some alien technology that allows you to be bigger on the inside than on the outside.)
 
sferrin said:
Sundog said:
kagemusha said:
Flyaway said:
I imagine the NGAD is going to be more like the F-111 in size than the F-22.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. If you want both speed and range you need a bigger fighter aircraft with more fuel capacity than the F-22.
Click to expand...

That's assuming you're carrying the same payload and using the same propulsion system. The PCA will be using a more advanced propulsion system, so it won't necessarily need to be larger than the F-22. It's going to come down to, IMHO, how much greater range it will need than the F-22 and what the payload will be. I think the payload could possibly be smaller than that of the F-22's payload, with the advent of unmanned wingman systems and other platforms acting as flying armories. If I understand correctly, the PCA is the fighter component of the NGAD system and I could see it acting as more of a high speed hunter to find and target the enemy, rather then actually engaging them in direct aerial combat. Basically handing what it's targeted off and weapons firing to other systems and only using it's own onboard weapons if it thinks anything is too much of a threat to complete it's own mission.
Click to expand...
I'd wager it would be more XF-108/Blackbird sized (especially if it's going to have a pair of 50,000lb+ engines, and be needed over the Pacific). You can't really have more fuel than an F-22, larger engines, more weapons, and still be smaller than an F-22. (Not unless you have access to some alien technology that allows you to be bigger on the inside than on the outside.)
Click to expand...

You do know the considerably smaller f35 carries almost as much fuel as the larger F-22and the considerably smaller f35 is pushing out around 45,000lbs of thrust and its only carrying fewer missiles by 2smallishsidewinders? An f111 sized aircraft slightly larger than the yf23 could carry quite a lot of fuel with plenty of aams.

You want an aircraft 110 feet long for what again? Akaik there is no published requirement for it to fly from Tokyo to Hong Kong or New York to LA on a single tank. As the USAFhas said, air superiority is going to be more about 1super duper airframe e that does everything.

I actually envision a large drone minus cockpit and life support with a very long range and 4 aams serving in the loyal wingman role in addition to smaller drones with cudas. Point it towards china and let it do its job with a 6+ hour sortie ability.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Sundog said:
kagemusha said:
Flyaway said:
I imagine the NGAD is going to be more like the F-111 in size than the F-22.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. If you want both speed and range you need a bigger fighter aircraft with more fuel capacity than the F-22.
Click to expand...

That's assuming you're carrying the same payload and using the same propulsion system. The PCA will be using a more advanced propulsion system, so it won't necessarily need to be larger than the F-22. It's going to come down to, IMHO, how much greater range it will need than the F-22 and what the payload will be. I think the payload could possibly be smaller than that of the F-22's payload, with the advent of unmanned wingman systems and other platforms acting as flying armories. If I understand correctly, the PCA is the fighter component of the NGAD system and I could see it acting as more of a high speed hunter to find and target the enemy, rather then actually engaging them in direct aerial combat. Basically handing what it's targeted off and weapons firing to other systems and only using it's own onboard weapons if it thinks anything is too much of a threat to complete it's own mission.
Click to expand...
I'd wager it would be more XF-108/Blackbird sized (especially if it's going to have a pair of 50,000lb+ engines, and be needed over the Pacific). You can't really have more fuel than an F-22, larger engines, more weapons, and still be smaller than an F-22. (Not unless you have access to some alien technology that allows you to be bigger on the inside than on the outside.)
Click to expand...
F23A was supposed to have quite a bit more fuel than the F22, not to say longer range.
Cutting down a pair of control surfaces significantly reduces drag overall and increases range.
As such, an aircraft with 1200 nmi+ radius can be made within dimensions of 80 feet length if it doesn't have vertical stabilizers.
It doesn't need to be 100 ft long.
 
rooster said:
You do know the considerably smaller f35 carries almost as much fuel as the larger F-22and the considerably smaller f35 is pushing out around 45,000lbs of thrust and its only carrying fewer missiles by 2smallishsidewinders?
Click to expand...

The F-35 is a fat little tub that tops out at 70,000 pounds. NGAD will have a pair of 50k-60k engines and be XF-108 sized. If they want it to do what they say it will have to be. Has nothing to do with what, "I want". :rolleyes:
 
Bhurki said:
sferrin said:
Sundog said:
kagemusha said:
Flyaway said:
I imagine the NGAD is going to be more like the F-111 in size than the F-22.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. If you want both speed and range you need a bigger fighter aircraft with more fuel capacity than the F-22.
Click to expand...

That's assuming you're carrying the same payload and using the same propulsion system. The PCA will be using a more advanced propulsion system, so it won't necessarily need to be larger than the F-22. It's going to come down to, IMHO, how much greater range it will need than the F-22 and what the payload will be. I think the payload could possibly be smaller than that of the F-22's payload, with the advent of unmanned wingman systems and other platforms acting as flying armories. If I understand correctly, the PCA is the fighter component of the NGAD system and I could see it acting as more of a high speed hunter to find and target the enemy, rather then actually engaging them in direct aerial combat. Basically handing what it's targeted off and weapons firing to other systems and only using it's own onboard weapons if it thinks anything is too much of a threat to complete it's own mission.
Click to expand...
I'd wager it would be more XF-108/Blackbird sized (especially if it's going to have a pair of 50,000lb+ engines, and be needed over the Pacific). You can't really have more fuel than an F-22, larger engines, more weapons, and still be smaller than an F-22. (Not unless you have access to some alien technology that allows you to be bigger on the inside than on the outside.)
Click to expand...
F23A was supposed to have quite a bit more fuel than the F22, not to say longer range.
Cutting down a pair of control surfaces significantly reduces drag overall and increases range.
As such, an aircraft with 1200 nmi+ radius can be made within dimensions of 80 feet length if it doesn't have vertical stabilizers.
It doesn't need to be 100 ft long.
Click to expand...
Mind that no verticals would certainly mean more drag: aero or system drag if the plane has some effector running.
 
fredymac said:
What is an anti-laser missile? You can't dodge a laser beam so the only thing you can do is harden the missile. At close tactical range, an HEL beam will put a very intense focus onto a target so you will need a much thicker, heavier skin. That in turn will lead to lasers with more power just like every other arms race. I see self defense lasers working in conjunction with "active protection" mini missiles (like the anti torpedoes being developed). Optimizing against one makes the job easier for the other. Of course, all the existing inventory of AA missiles is rendered obsolete.
Click to expand...

I can think of a few ways that laser-seekers could operate with a laser beam focused on the missile, if the beam can focus on the missile. And if the missile fires off mini-missiles/projectiles before destruct, how many can the laser handle?
 
sferrin said:
The F-35 is a fat little tub that tops out at 70,000 pounds. NGAD will have a pair of 50k-60k engines and be XF-108 sized. If they want it to do what they say it will have to be. Has nothing to do with what, "I want". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what the actual requirements will be. I do wonder if supercruise will be stressed in this generation. Trimble's and other's reporting seem to indicate that the AF is looking at FCS for the sky type concept. So it's not clear to me anyway if there will be a centerpiece "main" fighter type platform. If there is a main platform I'm guessing it'll be the primary BVR shooter lobbing AIM-260s while the "loyal wingman" / LCAAT will be forward with SACMs and limited -260s. Just my WAG.

Given that I'm guessing that a maybe a bit larger than the F-22 in payload but as you say it will need tons of gas. The F-108 had a metric crap ton, 7100 gallons for a fuel fraction of almost 0.47. I'm not sure it needs to be F-108 big but I can see F-111 size easily. A delta can carry a lot of gas but it will greatly depend on how much emphasis on supersonic persistence will play into the requirements. If its alot, then yeah it could easily end up F-108/Battlestar Galactica size.
 
A serious question for NGAD is 1 or 2 pilots. If the plane is meant to be a long-range UAV coordinator, 2 pilots will make for much easier battlespace management. IIRC, there were studies of a wild-weasel F-15E and those outperformed the F-16 variant by virtue of the 2-manned aircraft.

This may be why China is considering a 2-manned J-20 variant for UAV control.
 
One at least of the crew might well be offloaded in a ground station with secure high speed communication equipment. And I am not talking about under qualified airmen or full time drone pilots retasked to fill a gap but real pilots, fully proficient, taking turns to fly for real the aircraft depending on mission objectives.
This could be the norm quite soon even among airliners pilots.
 
starviking said:
I can think of a few ways that laser-seekers could operate with a laser beam focused on the missile, if the beam can focus on the missile. And if the missile fires off mini-missiles/projectiles before destruct, how many can the laser handle?
Click to expand...


An HEL system can tell what type of missile is attacking (large aperture resolution) and an IR missile will probably be lased at the seeker. This will shatter the dome and ignite the sensor behind it. I don't see any way to work around that. Radar guided missiles will be handled by a main body kill. Ever increasing laser power will be pushed to reduce engagement times in any event so as I mentioned before, the race will be laser power vs hardening measures. But the economics favor the laser as it never gets expended during an engagement while the missiles get more expensive.
 
fredymac said:
An HEL system can tell what type of missile is attacking (large aperture resolution) and an IR missile will probably be lased at the seeker. This will shatter the dome and ignite the sensor behind it. I don't see any way to work around that. Radar guided missiles will be handled by a main body kill. Ever increasing laser power will be pushed to reduce engagement times in any event so as I mentioned before, the race will be laser power vs hardening measures. But the economics favor the laser as it never gets expended during an engagement while the missiles get more expensive.
Click to expand...

Lasers can be easily countered with volume. Just fire 4+ missiles on the damn target. The laser will probably shoot down 2 of them but something will eventually hit you because the laser cannot shoot down targets instantly. Ofc you have other defences too, like jammers, chaff, flares etc. Lasers are gonna be just another countermeasure (but a very effective one).
 
6th Gen Tech will probably allow the entire aircraft to instantly eliminate its signature (all aspects) upon a missile lock.
 
Zoomer said:
Lasers can be easily countered with volume. Just fire 4+ missiles on the damn target. The laser will probably shoot down 2 of them but something will eventually hit you because the laser cannot shoot down targets instantly. Ofc you have other defences too, like jammers, chaff, flares etc. Lasers are gonna be just another countermeasure (but a very effective one).
Click to expand...


Depends on engagement time and available range. Eventually, if your missile is in range, so are you (fighter) so you will need to back off and go to radar. For ranges around 100km, a 1 MW HEL shooting out of an 1M aperture will probably take no more than a 2-3 seconds per kill. They are currently pushing development of 1/2 MW SS lasers so figure another 5-10 years. The long term trends suggest short range engagements (under 50KM) will become similar to air-air gun engagements. Rare.
 
so what becomes the winner then? Lots of missiles, or a big laser, or both? Possibly on 2 airframes? almost sounds like battleships, fleets lining up opposite each other....
 
In_A_Dream said:
Fluff said:
Yes, I wonder why we didnt skip gen 1 to 5, and just go to 6.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't track with the sarcasm.
Click to expand...
well all aspects is a little open?

We talk about quantum radars, etc. whatever your emitting can be detected, even if its directional, etc.

And people once thought the eindecker was the pinnacle of air combat, so whatever is invented will have a counter, even if its firing 50,000 paintballs into an area.....
 
fredymac said:
Zoomer said:
Lasers can be easily countered with volume. Just fire 4+ missiles on the damn target. The laser will probably shoot down 2 of them but something will eventually hit you because the laser cannot shoot down targets instantly. Ofc you have other defences too, like jammers, chaff, flares etc. Lasers are gonna be just another countermeasure (but a very effective one).
Click to expand...


Depends on engagement time and available range. Eventually, if your missile is in range, so are you (fighter) so you will need to back off and go to radar. For ranges around 100km, a 1 MW HEL shooting out of an 1M aperture will probably take no more than a 2-3 seconds per kill. They are currently pushing development of 1/2 MW SS lasers so figure another 5-10 years. The long term trends suggest short range engagements (under 50KM) will become similar to air-air gun engagements. Rare.
Click to expand...

At a guess, the rate of fire for the laser will probably dependent on electrical power generation and heat dissipation more than the dwell time required to destroy the target.
 
BDF said:
sferrin said:
The F-35 is a fat little tub that tops out at 70,000 pounds. NGAD will have a pair of 50k-60k engines and be XF-108 sized. If they want it to do what they say it will have to be. Has nothing to do with what, "I want". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what the actual requirements will be. I do wonder if supercruise will be stressed in this generation. Trimble's and other's reporting seem to indicate that the AF is looking at FCS for the sky type concept. So it's not clear to me anyway if there will be a centerpiece "main" fighter type platform. If there is a main platform I'm guessing it'll be the primary BVR shooter lobbing AIM-260s while the "loyal wingman" / LCAAT will be forward with SACMs and limited -260s. Just my WAG.

Given that I'm guessing that a maybe a bit larger than the F-22 in payload but as you say it will need tons of gas. The F-108 had a metric crap ton, 7100 gallons for a fuel fraction of almost 0.47. I'm not sure it needs to be F-108 big but I can see F-111 size easily. A delta can carry a lot of gas but it will greatly depend on how much emphasis on supersonic persistence will play into the requirements. If its alot, then yeah it could easily end up F-108/Battlestar Galactica size.
Click to expand...

The new gen adaptive cycle jets under competitive development, GE XA100 and P&W XA101, said to give ~50,000 lbs thrust, which a 40% increase on P&W F119's used in the F-22 plus better fuel economy, F-22 gross weight of 65,000 lbs clean.

Purely based on power would it be reasonable to expect similar F-22 flight characteristics if not better with 50%+ increase in range and gross weight of 90,000 to 100,000 lbs clean?
 
Interesting attempt.

IMOHO one big absent of this list is human enhancement. System integration 'have been constantly improved from one generation to another to what we call today human/machine teaming introduced on 5th Gen fighter. The next phase of progress will see pilot burdening the next step in this evolution since human interface and pilot integration have been perfected to a point where we as human are the limiting factors.

That it calls from human being deported from high G platforms (à la Loyal Wingman) or pilots fully offloaded from the platforms (drone) or pilots being physically and cognitively bettered to integrate deeper with their platform's capabilities remains a thing to see (it might well be a combination of all the above and more!).
 
Last edited:
I can see development systems being flown and possibly some older airframes being adapted for control surface tests etc but doubt an actual sixth gen aircraft per se is flying anywhere yet.
 
@Foo Fighter & @dark sidius : I don't see how you can be so delusional. A 6th Gen prototype or demonstrator is not anecdotical. It's in essence a revolutionary airframe with breakthrough systems. Otherwise we would have an upgraded airframe or a block evolution of an existing airframe.
This is not the fashion industry, rebranding old things to look new.
 
I'm not saying it is anything else but to say a sixth gen fighter is flying now is the delusion. Some sensors but at early development and also some aerodynamic test parts perhaps but that does not make it a sixth gen fighter. How many times will whatever they are testing be changed/refined?

Delusional is thinking a sixth gen fighter is flying now.
 
TomcatViP said:
@Foo Fighter & @dark sidius : I don't see how you can be so delusional. A 6th Gen prototype or demonstrator is not anecdotical. It's in essence a revolutionary airframe with breakthrough systems. Otherwise we would have an upgraded airframe or a block evolution of an existing airframe.
This is not the fashion industry, rebranding old things to look new.
Click to expand...
No delusional, I think Lockheed may built a NGAD demonstrator .
 
dark sidius said:
TomcatViP said:
@Foo Fighter & @dark sidius : I don't see how you can be so delusional. A 6th Gen prototype or demonstrator is not anecdotical. It's in essence a revolutionary airframe with breakthrough systems. Otherwise we would have an upgraded airframe or a block evolution of an existing airframe.
This is not the fashion industry, rebranding old things to look new.
Click to expand...
No delusional, I think Lockheed may built a NGAD demonstrator .
Click to expand...

IMO probably more like the XF-88/F-101 or XF-92/F-102 rather than a X-35/F-35.
 
The impression I get is that the current demonstrator was more a demonstration of rapid prototyping of one or more specific technologies, including the digital design/production process itself. I doubt the platform is as close to being a finished fighter even as much as say the YF-17. But none of us known enough to definitely say, one way or the other. The NGAD is a surprisingly secretive program compared to say, the F-35.
 
Josh_TN said:
The impression I get is that the current demonstrator was more a demonstration of rapid prototyping of one or more specific technologies, including the digital design/production process itself. I doubt the platform is as close to being a finished fighter even as much as say the YF-17. But none of us known enough to definitely say, one way or the other. The NGAD is a surprisingly secretive program compared to say, the F-35.
Click to expand...

That was my initial take as well (that they weren't talking about an actual flying airframe at all) but I'm not entirely sure what to think at this point. My post above is what I think best case might be.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom