USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis [2008- 2025]

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a wise man once said, Fascinating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
windcalm said:
Assuming a 22.5° 2D wedge, the 40.8° oblique shock wave corresponds to about Mach 3. For a 3D cone, the Mach number is around 2.
Click to expand...
So a mission profile to remember from the Northrop grumman patent was a cruising altitude of FL600 with supercruise at M2.2 with periodic reductions down to M0.8. I suppose that profile may fit into that regime, but I have to wonder if the artwork is solely artistic, maybe even symbolic.
 
windcalm said:
Assuming a 22.5° 2D wedge, the 40.8° oblique shock wave corresponds to about Mach 3. For a 3D cone, the Mach number is around 2.
Click to expand...
The NGAD prototype has already flown and broken records according to the USAF. I am 99% sure the record broken was the manned aircraft air breathing speed record. Faster than the SR-71. The sweep angle points to Mach 3+ top speed.

I am not saying NGAD is in the same speed class as the SR-71. There is a huge difference from hitting Mach 3.5 for a single second and cruising at Mach 3.4 for 15 minutes.

It was rumored that the F-15EX got very close to Mach 3 in a dash. It shouldn't be too difficult to go 20% faster than the F-15EX with a optimised highly swept design like the NGAD renderings and with the XA100, XA101 style adaptive engines.

This is most likely why we have continuous SR-72 rumors. Take a look at Google images when you type SR-72 and NGAD. Very similar designs from a cosmetic perspective. Very different from an engine persepctive. NGAD would be optimised to supercruise close to Mach 2 without afterburner using a three stream turbofan for 1,000+ nm. The SR-72 with it's rumored Mach 5+ top speed points towards a turbofan that can switch to scramjet mode. I am 99% sure the SR-72 doesn't exist and every rumor is just the NGAD prototype that uses more conventional propulsion. Any hypersonic rumor coming out of Lockheed would be from a high speed missile development.

I am 90% sure NGAD is already in low rate production at Skunkworks like the F-117. Entirely funded by the black budget so no public contract will exist. In the first gulf war the F-117 surprised the world when they started landing in Saudi Arabia. I expect in 2027 we might see photos of dozens of NGAD fighters landing in Japan. From an operational perspective NGAD will offer a niche capability like the F-117 did. I would expect around 50 aircraft produced.

F/A-XX for the US Navy will be a public program. It will be purchased in much larger quantities. It will also be much cheaper than NGAD. F/A-XX will be slower than NGAD as it needs to have good range while still being able to operate from an aircraft carrier.
 
RJMAZ said:
The NGAD prototype has already flown and broken records according to the USAF. I am 99% sure the record broken was the manned aircraft air breathing speed record. Faster than the SR-71. The sweep angle points to Mach 3+ top speed.
Click to expand...

I thought they were referencing how fast they got the initial design into the air?
 
In_A_Dream said:
I thought they were referencing how fast they got the initial design into the air?
Click to expand...
"All I can say is that the NGAD test flights have been amazing -- records have been broken," Will Roper says.

That is the quote. This means a record has been broken in the flight test. Climb records would be the least likely to be broken as NGAD is a long range design and won't be able to beat a stripped down Su-27 or F-15. Altitude records are also very high. This is why the speed record is the most likely record. The Mig-25 using old turbojets could get within 15% of the SR-71's record.
 
RJMAZ said:
The NGAD prototype has already flown and broken records according to the USAF.
Click to expand...

These were technology demonstrators, not prototypes. They did not represent a prototype of a prospective operational system.

RJMAZ said:
I am 90% sure NGAD is already in low rate production at Skunkworks like the F-117.
Click to expand...

No production money has been allocated for NGAD.

RJMAZ said:
Entirely funded by the black budget so no public contract will exist.
Click to expand...

NGAD contracts are public.
Sadly people who make hand-wavey “it’s the black budget” comments are just lazy and using it as a MacGuffin. While no one expects Joe Internet to have the experience of 30 years of disassembling government budgets the standards for those who publish “news” articles that compose Joe”s information diet should be much higher.
 
Last edited:
RJMAZ said:
I am 90% sure NGAD is already in low rate production at Skunkworks like the F-117.
Click to expand...
Even with the whole rehearsal going on with NGAD?

RJMAZ said:
In the first gulf war the F-117 surprised the world when they started landing in Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...
F-117's were long declassified before their war debut. Their first combat debut wasn't even the Gulf War, but Panama.
 
eagle said:
Mach 2.497 actually.
Boeing's program manager misspoke.
Click to expand...
That is usually what happens when someone accidentally says restricted information. They have to say they misspoke. He originally said mach 2.9. When misspeaking it is common to get two numbers the wrong way around. But he said "nearly mach 3". Mach 2.497 is not "nearly mach 3."

"Nearly mach 3" matches his "mach 2.9" quote.

The official F-15E fact sheet on the USAF website says Mach 2.5 plus. The F-15EX has engines with 23% more thrust than the original F-15E engines.

If you want to accept the Mach 2.497 speed that is fine. I think the majority of members will now take the Mach 2.9 speed for the F-15EX. That is why I am using it as supporting evidence for the NGAD prototype hitting Mach 3.5 in a very short sprint. Top speed is the most likely record that was broken on the test flight.
 
In order to exceed the limit of M = 2.5 (2655 km / h), it is required to make an aircraft either from steel or titanium. A steel aircraft will not have spacious weapon bay, a titanium one costs two to two and a half times more expensive than an aluminum one
 
paralay said:
In order to exceed the limit of M = 2.5 (2655 km / h), it is required to make an aircraft either from steel or titanium. A steel aircraft will not have spacious weapon bay, a titanium one costs two to two and a half times more expensive than an aluminum one
Click to expand...
Do you feel that advances in composite materials could counter this?
 
paralay said:
In order to exceed the limit of M = 2.5 (2655 km / h), it is required to make an aircraft either from steel or titanium. A steel aircraft will not have spacious weapon bay, a titanium one costs two to two and a half times more expensive than an aluminum one
Click to expand...
That is not true. The duration of the time spent at high speed determines the heat load rather than the maximum speed achieved.

NGAD will be designed for extended periods of supercruise. NGAD supercruising at Mach 2 for 1,000 miles would put more heat load on the aircraft structure than sprinting to Mach 3.5 for a few seconds. NGAD will have extreme levels of cooling most likely using the fuel as a heat sink. It will pump fuel through the hot edges as coolant. 3D printing will be great for this like how the rocket industry is now doing this with the nozzle cooling. NGAD will also use high temperature materials to handle the long duration supercruise requirement. NGAD is also shaped to avoid hot spots. That high price also points towards a large percentage of titanium. A brief sprint to Mach 3.5 would only cause problems to the stealth coatings as it would not have enough time for the heat to penetrate deep inside the aircraft.

Any speed limitations imposed on NGAD would be to simply manage the stealth coatings. This is similar to the F-35 and F-22 where they have a certain time limits at high speed or with afterburner usage. Once everything cools down they can go fast again. I'm sure the record breaking NGAD test flight had the paint looking nice and crispy.

This doesn't mean NGAD will be flying at Mach 3.5 during combat but it was simply a demonstration. NGAD flying it's entire mission supercruising at Mach 2 is already impressive. It will be very hard to intercept or shoot down once you add the low radar cross section.
 
Last edited:
RJMAZ said:
The official F-15E fact sheet on the USAF website says Mach 2.5 plus. The F-15EX has engines with 23% more thrust than the original F-15E engines.
Click to expand...

The -229 engines are 23% more powerful than the -220 engines, yet the F-15E-229 maxes out at Mach 2.35 whereas the F-15E-220 goes up to Mach 2.4 (clean, on a standard day).
Meaning: static sea level thrust numbers are rather meaningless for top speed.

RJMAZ said:
If you want to accept the Mach 2.497 speed that is fine. I think the majority of members will now take the Mach 2.9 speed for the F-15EX.
Click to expand...

If by majority you mean yourself, then yes. :D
 
RJMAZ said:
The official F-15E fact sheet on the USAF website says Mach 2.5 plus. The F-15EX has engines with 23% more thrust than the original F-15E engines
Click to expand...
I don't think the F-15A was thrust limited for max speed. There is more to operating at high speed than thrust/drag.
 
RJMAZ said:
The duration of the time spent at high speed determines the heat load rather than the maximum speed achieved
Click to expand...
Not really. A particular shape at a particular speed will result in a particular maximum heating effect. Altitude will not change this number, but will affect the rate of the transfer. Time spent below the time necessary to transfer the maximum heat load will obviously result in a lower temperature, but there is no magic that let's you go at some extremely fast speed just because you do it briefly.

And materials as a rule hate repeated extreme heating and cooling cycles. You can do a lot of abusive things with an airframe, if you only want it to fly that one time.
 
paralay said:
In order to exceed the limit of M = 2.5 (2655 km / h), it is required to make an aircraft either from steel or titanium. A steel aircraft will not have spacious weapon bay, a titanium one costs two to two and a half times more expensive than an aluminum one
Click to expand...
Beyond the airframe, what is the heat rating for that enormous polymer canopy? You think they designed it for Mach 3 thermal loads? Probably not. And the local thermal load would probably be even higher in front because of the shape.
 
quellish said:
These were technology demonstrators, not prototypes. They did not represent a prototype of a prospective operational system.
Click to expand...
Now you are contradicting yourself.

quellish said:
www.defensenews.com

The US Air Force has built and flown a mysterious full-scale prototype of its future fighter jet

Does this give the Next Generation Air Dominance program more momentum, or does it open it up to more scrutiny?
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
Your link just said they flew a full-scale prototype. The title of your link:

The US Air Force has built and flown a mysterious full-scale prototype of its future fighter jet

Its OK. We dont need to debate over the exact terminology. Or which budget paid for the aircraft.

orca-image-1766359962.jpeg
 
Last edited:
RJMAZ said:
Now you are contradicting yourself.


Your link just said they flew a a full-scale prototype. The title of your link:

The US Air Force has built and flown a mysterious full-scale prototype of its future fighter jet
THE  RJMAZ ZONE!
Click to expand...
The author seems to be making the same mistake you are, but if you read the quotes, it is pretty clear.
 
_Del_ said:
The author seems to be making the same mistake you are, but if you read the quotes, it is pretty clear.
Click to expand...
The biggest mistake would be not having a sense of humour. Saying "not a prototype" and then the very next post sharing a link titled "full-scale prototype" is quite hilarious.
 
RJMAZ said:
Now you are contradicting yourself.

Your link just said they flew a full-scale prototype. The title of your link:
Click to expand...

I would suggest reading the article:

“We’ve already built and flown a full-scale flight demonstrator in the real world, and we broke records in doing it,” Will Roper told Defense News in an exclusive interview ahead of the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber Conference. “We are ready to go and build the next-generation aircraft in a way that has never happened before.”
Click to expand...
 
quellish said:
I would suggest reading the article:
Click to expand...
The link has the word demonstrator twice and the word prototype seven times.

With the digital design software they no longer need to create demonstrators or scaled models. They can model and simulate all of this with software. The full-scale prototype will then only need minor tweaks to go into low scale production.

The new Skunk Works advanced manufacturing facility is optimised for low rate production. Or as I like to call it full-scale prototype production. Lockheed recently hired 2000 staff to work at this new facility. All signs point to NGAD being produced at a rate of around one aircraft per month.

We will see in the next 12 months when there is still no NGAD contract points to it staying black.

Or if NGAD is awarded to Lockheed and they rapidly have a pair of production aircraft flying this points to them already being in production right now.
 
RJMAZ said:
The link has the word demonstrator twice and the word prototype seven times.
Click to expand...

And yet the source they quote (Roper) very specifically says demonstrator.

RJMAZ said:
With the digital design software they no longer need to create demonstrators or scaled models. They can model and simulate all of this with software. The full-scale prototype will then only need minor tweaks to go into low scale production.
Click to expand...

That would make validating the software models difficult. But it would also remove all need for the Groom Lake and RATSCAT facilities, which would be a win! Let's close them today and bet on the design software!

RJMAZ said:
The new Skunk Works advanced manufacturing facility is optimised for low rate production. Or as I like to call it full-scale prototype production. Lockheed recently hired 2000 staff to work at this new facility. All signs point to NGAD being produced at a rate of around one aircraft per month.
Click to expand...

It's not "full scale prototype production". It's low rate production - producing small quantities of things using manufacturing processes that do not scale up well, like 3D printing. That facility is being used for things like Speed Racer production.

RJMAZ said:
We will see in the next 12 months when there is still no NGAD contract points to it staying black.
Click to expand...

There are multiple NGAD contracts right now, that have been awarded in the past year, so I am not sure what you are referring to.
 
RJMAZ said:
The link has the word demonstrator twice and the word prototype seven times.
Click to expand...
Pedantically, and specifically, Valerie Insinna (the writer), used the word prototype seven times, and demonstrator once.

The source, Dr. Will Roper was quoted using the word prototype zero times and demonstrator once.

I would tend to go with the interviewee as the subject matter expert, but hey, that's just me.
 
red admiral said:
What threats is it meant to be defending the fleet from? And which of these require supersonic performance?

It's not going to be much use against DF-21D from land/ship or H-6s launching ASBMs from 1,000nm away. So is it mostly just going to be doing outer layer cruise missile defence before they get to SM-6 range?
Click to expand...
There are more aircraft threats than just H-6 with ASBMs. A majority of Chinese H-6s are going to be cruise missile carriers with YJ-12s for the foreseeable future, and YJ-12s don't have quite enough range to keep their launch platforms out of range of the CAP fighters. And much Chinese maritime strike capability still rests on fighters, quite a few of which still have to rely on even shorter-range missiles than the YJ-12.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Do you feel that advances in composite materials could counter this?
Click to expand...
I am not aware of the characteristics of modern composite materials. I assume that their heat transfer is worse than that of metals, but this is not accurate

RJMAZ said:
This doesn't mean NGAD will be flying at Mach 3.5 during combat but it was simply a demonstration. NGAD flying it's entire mission supercruising at Mach 2 is already impressive. It will be very hard to intercept or shoot down once you add the low radar cross section.
Click to expand...
The fact is that since the seventies, American military aviation has deliberately reduced the requirements for maximum speed. I do not know how this is justified, probably there is logic in this.
Flying at a speed of more than M = 2.1 forces the use of an adjustable air intake, which makes the structure heavier by ~ 300 kg and increases the RCS due to the presence of gaps in the front hemisphere.

I do not think that the glazing of the cabin is a serious limitation on the maximum speed. There are enough solutions in this area. For example, the nose fairings of hypersonic missiles are made of glass and its derivatives
 
paralay said:
The fact is that since the seventies, American military aviation has deliberately reduced the requirements for maximum speed. I do not know how this is justified, probably there is logic in this.
Click to expand...
The cruising speeds of fighters has steadily increased. Average speed has significantly increased. There is a huge advantage to supercruising. Faster is definitely better. The top speed haven't been as important due to the range being so low when travelling with Max afterburner.

A Mach 3.5 top speed of NGAD would not have been a design requirement. It would have simply been a result of the requirement for a high supercruise speed. If you build a design that can cruise at mach 2 without afterburner then it shouldn't be a surprise that it will be extremely fast with afterburner.

paralay said:
Flying at a speed of more than M = 2.1 forces the use of an adjustable air intake, which makes the structure heavier by ~ 300 kg and increases the RCS due to the presence of gaps in the front hemisphere.
Click to expand...
It is easy to design the fixed intakes to be tuned for the mach 2+ range. The intake would then be a restriction at low speeds. There are multiple solutions that can solve that. Both the F-117 and B-2 have doors that opened at low speeds to increase airflow to the engines.

This also assumes the three stream engine behaves the same at high speed. The third stream could behave like the J58 engine in the SR-71. So instead of narrowing the intake the extra airflow can bleed into the third stream and dump into the afterburner. This would also explain the record breaking speed.
 
I know three airplanes that flew for a long time at supersonic speeds of more than 2500 km / h, two of them are steel, one is titanium. The preparation for the flight of the latter is comparable to the preparation for a flight into space.
The cost of NGAD has already become a problem for the world's largest military budget...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom