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

[Arjen]

'coz sometimes you need a larf.

 

[Grey Havoc]

This one?
http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/25/mysterious-bae-replica/

Nope, different joke.

 

[sferrin]

'coz sometimes you need a larf.

Typically one would say something funny in those instances. This was more confusing than funny.

 

[Arjen]

Typically one would say something funny in those instances. This was more confusing than funny.

Jokes suffer if they need explaining.

This one?
http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/25/mysterious-bae-replica/

Nope, different joke.

Oh well.

 

[bring_it_on]

Getting back to Lockheed's design.

I wished we had a different angle but the current picture reveals a little more compared to the original miss February renderings. Do we have comparable angle on the Boeing design?

 

[bring_it_on]

IR Search & Track

The Air Force Research Laboratory is looking for the next leap in airborne infrared search-and-track technology after posting a broad agency announcement on March 12 for innovative ideas that might lead to the development of an "advanced, staring" IRST capability for air superiority.
The new program is separate to the Air Force's pursuit of an IRST pod for the F-15C Eagle, and instead focuses on future designs.
AFRL is particularly interested in new technologies to create a smaller and more capable aircraft-mounted device with a wide field of view to detect and track airborne threats in a highly contested, anti-access, area-denied environment.
"By leveraging advancements in the development of large-format, two-dimensional focal plane arrays, much benefit can be realized from successful implementation of Wide Field-of-View concepts for an offensive staring IRST system," the statement of work attached to the BAA states. "It is anticipated that this type of sensor will yield higher performance in a more compact, lighter-weight design with greater aircraft installation flexibility and beneficially augment existing fire control capabilities."
Today's systems spot infrared radiation emitting from enemy aircraft and missiles, but have difficulty in some operating environments and poor weather conditions, according to the BAA.
Tomorrow's system, though, could be capable of detecting and tracking along "clear atmospheric paths and in cluttered environments," the BAA states. The "staring" sensor would be a fixed unit like the Active Electronically Scanned Array radars mounted on modern fighter jets -- doing away with existing gimbaled optics.
AFRL expects program tasks to include trade studies, preliminary designs, prototyping, algorithm development and validation of the long-range infrared sensing capability, according to the BAA.

http://insidedefense.com/defense-next/ir-search-track

 

[LowObservable]

Trying to leap-frog over Selex-ES. GLWT.

 

[Sentinel36k]

Not 100% sure this is related but I feel like it could be. This article is interesting and uses a rendering of Boeing's FA-XX and mainly discusses DARPA’s Air Dominance Initiative. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/04/darpas-air-dominance-initiativ/

Sentinel

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Speaking of which....Is The DEW Line still an active blog or what? Anytime I go on all I still see is the Sept. article "Blooding The Raptor". What gives?

 

[SpudmanWP]

"Speaking of ...DEW"


I was wondering the same thing myself.

 

[bobbymike]

"Speaking of ...DEW"


I was wondering the same thing myself.

Also, I've noticed AW&ST Ares Blog hasn't update since February 27th. Low Observable?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

The plot thickens!

 

[bobbymike]

Not the F-22 Replacement Squad


—John A. Tirpak

3/18/2015

​The Pentagon's Air Superiority 2030 Study isn't meant to lead directly to a plan for replacing the F-22, Air Force acquisition executive William LaPlante said Tuesday. Speaking at a McAleese Associates/Credit Suisse symposium in Washington, D.C., LaPlante said the study—formally, the Air Superiority 2030 Enterprise Capability Collaboration Team—is best viewed like the "family of systems" study in 2010 that led to the requirements for the Long-Range Strike Bomber. "I'm not smart enough, yet" to know what an F-22 replacement will have to be, LaPlante said, noting the group will start producing results in about a year, on everything from how fourth and fifth generation fighters will work collaboratively to the impact of offboard electronic warfare to directed energy's contribution. "I have not thought of the air dominance initiative as to how it segues into replacing any one platform or acquisition," he said, though "it may dovetail very nicely." An Air Force spokesman said later that the ECCT will develop a "master plan" for "all concept exploration, integration studies, and technology maturation and risk-reduction activities associated with quantifying capability gaps and identifying potential solutions." The analytic results derived through Fiscal 2017 will influence the F​​iscal 2018 "Strategic Planning Choices and FY '18 POM, with actionable choices" for the Air Force leadership, he said. LaPlante told Air Force Magazine he doesn't think an F-22 replacement plan is urgent because he expects the type to remain in service "into the 2040s," meaning "there is time" to develop a replacement scheme.

 

[LowObservable]

That sounds like someone talking about JAST in early 1993.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Indeed. Back to the future again.

 

[marauder2048]

"Speaking of ...DEW"


I was wondering the same thing myself.

Also, I've noticed AW&ST Ares Blog hasn't update since February 27th. Low Observable?

Sadly, they have both been dead (or at the very least brain dead) for some time. Heck, Phil Klass has more life left in him than Ares at this point.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The entire Aviation Week blog section is a bit of a mess at the moment.

 

[marauder2048]

Trying to leap-frog over Selex-ES. GLWT.

A nice chunk of Selex-ES FPA goodness and know-how came from the DRS partnership and acquisition.
The parent company of both, Finmeccania, is in such bad shape financially that it's looking to unacquire the latter.
It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[marauder2048]

Pentagon to build new variable-cycle engine for F-35 and other aircraft

Marina Malenic, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
17 March 2015

Key Points
The Pentagon's new sixth-generation engine will be built for the F-35 and several other aircraft
The new engine would be 35% more fuel efficient than existing engines, extending the range of US aircraft significantly
The Pentagon's developmental sixth-generation jet engine featuring greater fuel efficiency and thrust than existing military engines is initially being built for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a senior agency official said on 17 March.

"There are a number of threshold platforms," Alan Shaffer, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense, research, and engineering, told IHS Jane's at the Precision Strike Association's annual conference in Springfield, Virginia.

http://www.janes.com/article/50010/pentagon-to-build-new-variable-cycle-engine-for-f-35-and-other-aircraft

Should be a conference presentation available soon.

 

[bobbymike]

Air Superiority Concerns

—Marc V. Schanz

3/19/2015

Air Combat Command boss Gen. Hawk Carlisle said of all the challenges facing the Air Force’s core missions, air superiority is the “one I am most worried about,” and one of the reasons why USAF is pressing forward with “Air Superiority 2030.” Innovations from countries such as China, with the J-20 and the PL-15 air-to-air missile and electronic warfare tools, reveal that countries have studiously examined US aerial capabilities since the end of the Cold War and are building both a “capability and capacity advantage for the future,” he said during a March 17 McAleese Associates/Credit Suisse conference in Washington, D.C. To prevent this gap from emerging, USAF must pursue several initiatives, the first being to modernize the F-22 fleet and get avionics and systems to “keep up with the threat.” USAF must also keep some of its fourth generation fleet relevant, which means active electronically scanned radars must find a place in USAF’s investment program in the near future as well as investments in improved air-to-air weaponry. Beyond the near-term, the study will examine a wide-range of problems such as how systems engineering work on air superiority will progress and what manufacturing and technology risks exist some two decades down the road.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Pentagon to build new variable-cycle engine for F-35 and other aircraft

Marina Malenic, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
17 March 2015

Key Points
The Pentagon's new sixth-generation engine will be built for the F-35 and several other aircraft
The new engine would be 35% more fuel efficient than existing engines, extending the range of US aircraft significantly
The Pentagon's developmental sixth-generation jet engine featuring greater fuel efficiency and thrust than existing military engines is initially being built for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a senior agency official said on 17 March.

"There are a number of threshold platforms," Alan Shaffer, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense, research, and engineering, told IHS Jane's at the Precision Strike Association's annual conference in Springfield, Virginia.

http://www.janes.com/article/50010/pentagon-to-build-new-variable-cycle-engine-for-f-35-and-other-aircraft

Should be a conference presentation available soon.

They're trying to hide a new engine for the F-35 in plain sight. This does not bode well.

 

[Dragon029]

How so? The F135's doing alright and the new adaptive cycle engine looks to bring in some impressive new capabilities.

 

[sferrin]

They're trying to hide a new engine for the F-35 in plain sight. This does not bode well.

Drama much? No different than the F-14/15/16 being offered new engines later in life. Or do you think this engine will be rolling off the line tomorrow because the F135 is such a horrible engine? :

 

[Sundog]

They're trying to hide a new engine for the F-35 in plain sight. This does not bode well.

Drama much? No different than the F-14/15/16 being offered new engines later in life. Or do you think this engine will be rolling off the line tomorrow because the F135 is such a horrible engine? :

Actually, no. I don't remember a new engine being developed to be put in those aircraft ASAP after they were developed. Sure, there are upgrades as they age, but that isn't what they're saying here. They're talking about an all new engine being developed for the F-35 immediately. The F-135 engine was developed specifically for the F-35 and now they are designing an all new engine for the F-35 to replace the F-135. That wasn't done with any of the previous program you mentioned.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

It's because work on ADVENT has been so promising. Such a leap foward wasn't within reach back when the F-14, F-15, and F-16 were developed.

The F-14 isn't the best example to use anyway, considering it never even got the engine it was supposed to have.

 

[bobbymike]

It's because work on ADVENT has been so promising. Such a leap foward wasn't within reach back when the F-14, F-15, and F-16 were developed.

The F-14 isn't the best example to use anyway, considering it never even got the engine it was supposed to have.

Yes I thought I read somewhere that the next generation engine had so many promising technological advances that it was always meant to be the engine of the future as soon as it was ready and has nothing to do, per se, with the current F-35 engine?

 

[Dragon029]

It's because work on ADVENT has been so promising. Such a leap foward wasn't within reach back when the F-14, F-15, and F-16 were developed.

The F-14 isn't the best example to use anyway, considering it never even got the engine it was supposed to have.

Yes I thought I read somewhere that the next generation engine had so many promising technological advances that it was always meant to be the engine of the future as soon as it was ready and has nothing to do, per se, with the current F-35 engine?

Yes? ???

But really, this new engine supposedly will burn fuel up to 35% slower; if this was the commercial world and there was a new turbine that allowed 35% less fuel burn, you'd have airlines selling their brand new GE90s at half price to take advantage of this tech.

 

[bobbymike]

It's because work on ADVENT has been so promising. Such a leap foward wasn't within reach back when the F-14, F-15, and F-16 were developed.

The F-14 isn't the best example to use anyway, considering it never even got the engine it was supposed to have.

Yes I thought I read somewhere that the next generation engine had so many promising technological advances that it was always meant to be the engine of the future as soon as it was ready and has nothing to do, per se, with the current F-35 engine?

Yes? ???

But really, this new engine supposedly will burn fuel up to 35% slower; if this was the commercial world and there was a new turbine that allowed 35% less fuel burn, you'd have airlines selling their brand new GE90s at half price to take advantage of this tech.

They're trying to hide a new engine for the F-35 in plain sight. This does not bode well.

Drama much? No different than the F-14/15/16 being offered new engines later in life. Or do you think this engine will be rolling off the line tomorrow because the F135 is such a horrible engine? :

Actually, no. I don't remember a new engine being developed to be put in those aircraft ASAP after they were developed. Sure, there are upgrades as they age, but that isn't what they're saying here. They're talking about an all new engine being developed for the F-35 immediately. The F-135 engine was developed specifically for the F-35 and now they are designing an all new engine for the F-35 to replace the F-135. That wasn't done with any of the previous program you mentioned.

I agree 100%.

My comment was, while agreeing with CM, more to respond to Sundog's with regard to his inference that the new engine is being developed in a fashion that there is "something wrong" with the F135 so development is somehow being 'accelerated' to put on the F-35.

 

[sferrin]

They're trying to hide a new engine for the F-35 in plain sight. This does not bode well.

Drama much? No different than the F-14/15/16 being offered new engines later in life. Or do you think this engine will be rolling off the line tomorrow because the F135 is such a horrible engine? :

Actually, no. I don't remember a new engine being developed to be put in those aircraft ASAP after they were developed. Sure, there are upgrades as they age, but that isn't what they're saying here. They're talking about an all new engine being developed for the F-35 immediately. The F-135 engine was developed specifically for the F-35 and now they are designing an all new engine for the F-35 to replace the F-135. That wasn't done with any of the previous program you mentioned.

And that's not what they're doing here. : BTW I take it you don't recall the YF-16 flying with the DFE? The next generation engine is the next generation engine. They'd be working on it even if there was no such thing as the F-35. In this case they're just saying, "we'll be able to install this in the F-35 too in the future".

 

[bobbymike]

Hope this is classified for the "Cyberpod" part of the story seems 6th Generation ??

http://www.popsci.com/f-35-cyberjoint-cyberstrike-cyberfighter-gets-cyberpod-cyberwarfare?dom=fb&src=SOC

 

[bring_it_on]

Best read at the source -

http://www.janes.com/article/50036/f-35-programme-begins-developing-cyber-attack-capability

 

[Grey Havoc]

They're trying to hide a new engine for the F-35 in plain sight. This does not bode well.

Drama much? No different than the F-14/15/16 being offered new engines later in life. Or do you think this engine will be rolling off the line tomorrow because the F135 is such a horrible engine? :

Actually, no. I don't remember a new engine being developed to be put in those aircraft ASAP after they were developed. Sure, there are upgrades as they age, but that isn't what they're saying here. They're talking about an all new engine being developed for the F-35 immediately. The F-135 engine was developed specifically for the F-35 and now they are designing an all new engine for the F-35 to replace the F-135. That wasn't done with any of the previous program you mentioned.

And that's not what they're doing here. : BTW I take it you don't recall the YF-16 flying with the DFE? The next generation engine is the next generation engine. They'd be working on it even if there was no such thing as the F-35. In this case they're just saying, "we'll be able to install this in the F-35 too in the future".

The problem with that theory is not six months ago the Air Force among others were swearing up and down in Congress that the F-35 didn't need a new engine, especially with one with ADVENT technology. The comparison with the YF-16/DFE program also breaks down in other areas, such as the fact that the F-16 actually entered operational service just after that program commenced, and the F-16's second engine wasn't arbitrarily cancelled.

 

[sferrin]

The problem with that theory is not six months ago the Air Force among others were swearing up and down in Congress that the F-35 didn't need a new engine,

It doesn't.

especially with one with ADVENT technology.

Big difference between "needs" and "would be even better with".

The comparison with the YF-16/DFE program also breaks down in other areas, such as the fact that the F-16 actually entered operational service just after that program commenced,

Not really. ADVENT wasn't started for the express purpose of providing an adequate engine for the F-35. ADVENT would still be here even if the F-35 didn't exist. The DFE program WAS for the express purpose of providing the F-16 with an alternative to the troubled F100. (As well as giving the Tomcat something other than it's "interim" TF30, given its F100 derivative had failed completely.)

and the F-16's second engine wasn't arbitrarily cancelled.

Until DFE there was no second engine for the F-16 (or any other fighter for that matter). Also, the F136 wasn't "arbitrarily" cancelled. There was no money to keep it going and GE didn't feel like their design was good enough to garner sales if they funded it on their own dime.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

 

[Grey Havoc]

It doesn't.

At this point there are quite a few people that would disagree with you, including the US Congress. Assuming that they are still in the mood to keep propping up the F-35 program, that is.

Big difference between "needs" and "would be even better with".

Perhaps not in this case.

Not really. ADVENT wasn't started for the express purpose of providing an adequate engine for the F-35. ADVENT would still be here even if the F-35 didn't exist. The DFE program WAS for the express purpose of providing the F-16 with an alternative to the troubled F100. (As well as giving the Tomcat something other than it's "interim" TF30, given its F100 derivative had failed completely.)

Strange then, that the proponents of the F-35 program, and in particular it's P&W F135 engine, have spent so much time and effort over the years to try and kill anything ADVENT related.

Until DFE there was no second engine for the F-16 (or any other fighter for that matter). Also, the F136 wasn't "arbitrarily" cancelled. There was no money to keep it going and GE didn't feel like their design was good enough to garner sales if they funded it on their own dime.

Or perhaps GE along with their partner RR were just sick and tired of pouring money & resources into the all devouring black hole that the F-35 program had become.

 

[LowObservable]

Until DFE there was no second engine for the F-16 (or any other fighter for that matter)

I can think of one fighter family that flew with seven different types of engine.

ADVENT could bring many improvements to the F-35, including range and transonic acceleration. Moreover, the AF's plans show a lot of deliveries after 2025. It would not be smart to ignore its potential.

 

[sferrin]

At this point there are quite a few people that would disagree with you, including the US Congress.

And many more who would agree with me.

Assuming that they are still in the mood to keep propping up the F-35 program, that is.

"Propping up". Careful there, your bias is starting to show. ;D

Perhaps not in this case.

And perhaps we'll be visited by extraterrestrials today. But probably not.

Strange then, that the proponents of the F-35 program, and in particular it's P&W F135 engine, have spent so much time and effort over the years to try and kill anything ADVENT related.

Evidence? It's fairly amusing that you claim that proponents of the F-35 program have been "trying to kill anything ADVENT related" when just a few posts prior you were complaining that they were pushing ADVENT for the F-35.

"They're trying to hide a new engine for the F-35 in plain sight."

Or perhaps GE along with their partner RR were just sick and tired of pouring money & resources into the all devouring black hole that the F-35 program had become.

So they do it with ADVENT? Really, you should probably think things through a bit more.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

 

[sferrin]

Until DFE there was no second engine for the F-16 (or any other fighter for that matter)

I can think of one fighter family that flew with seven different types of engine.

Fair enough. There are always outliers. I think we can both agree though, that by a significant margin, most aircraft have a single engine type their entire lifetime. (Type, not improved model. For example the F-104 always had a J-79 though several variants.)

ADVENT could bring many improvements to the F-35, including range and transonic acceleration. Moreover, the AF's plans show a lot of deliveries after 2025. It would not be smart to ignore its potential.

Oh, most certainly. But, as I indicated earlier, there's a world of difference between needing a new engine and taking advantage of something that has become available. The Tomcats needed a new engine, as the F408 was a failure, of which not a single engine flew, and the TF30 was insufficiently powerful and the source of several accidents. The F-15E didn't need a new engine but the F110 is an option for those who want it. [/quote]

 

[LowObservable]

"Trying to kill" is overstated. However, recall that the Advent concept basically dates to the mid-1990s and was mostly constrained by funding (I am not aware of any critical enabling technologies that have been made possible in the meantime). Once the F-35 was planned as the only fighter until the 2020s, with an ATF-derived engine, the VCE had no sponsor.


The fact that many aircraft have gone through their lives with one engine type may reflect shorter production and service lives in the past. The 737 is on its third engine.

 

[sferrin]

"Trying to kill" is overstated. However, recall that the Advent concept basically dates to the mid-1990s and was mostly constrained by funding (I am not aware of any critical enabling technologies that have been made possible in the meantime). Once the F-35 was planned as the only fighter until the 2020s, with an ATF-derived engine, the VCE had no sponsor.


The fact that many aircraft have gone through their lives with one engine type may reflect shorter production and service lives in the past. The 737 is on its third engine.

There was always going to be a next generation engine after the F119/F135. I would hardly expect the DoD to do nothing in the engine dept. I also wouldn't ever have expected it to be significantly larger than the F135 as the preference seems to be "big enough for a single-engine fighter to use but not so big that two of them would be too big for a twin". And given the DoD doesn't seem to be crazy about F-20/Gripen sized aircraft that's going to set the lower limit on engine size. All that said, it seems logical it would end up in a size range that would fit in an F-35. (Though that LM notional 6th gen looks big enough to need a pair of NK-32s.

 

[sferrin]

The fact that many aircraft have gone through their lives with one engine type may reflect shorter production and service lives in the past. The 737 is on its third engine.

Could be. Though the F-4 is still flying on J79s and the F-5 on J85s. Some Skyhawks got F404s, the U-2 got the F118, B-52 got the TF33s. . . Off the top of my head though I can't think of another fighter aside from the F-16 that had two separate engine options so early in it's life cycle.