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

eagle said:
Sure but that is wishful thinking at this point. As I've said, there is currently no direct replacement planned. Au contraire, USAF wants to retire Strike Eagles with -220 engines. There are only 3 squadrons equipped with -229 engines.
Click to expand...
USAF is being even more short-sighted than usual to not make it a requirement that NGAD weapons bays be deep enough to hold 2000lb bombs, even if they only spec the payload out to ~4000lbs of AAMs.
 
VTOLicious said:
It would be interesting to create a 3D model of your proposal to explore if the volume required for weapons, fuel, engines, intake ducting, systems, etc. would actually result in a feasible aircraft (concept)... Tempting.

Btw, can you elaborate what mission profile is assumed for the 1700 nmi combat radius?
E.g.:
View attachment 726846
Click to expand...
I would absolutely love to explore something like this with you guys, but i’m going to be away from my computer for at least the next year come June… Perhaps you all can talk Paralay into it!

Once the company for the contract is selected, how long might we be waiting to see art? Perhaps we could look at other similar programs (F22/YF23) (F35) ?
 
www.airandspaceforces.com

In F-16 Dogfight, AI and Human Pilots Are ‘Roughly an Even Fight,’ Says Kendall

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall discussed his flight on an AI-controlled F-16 and explained why autonomy is key to the Pentagon’s future.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
...
Speaking at the Ash Carter Exchange, a conference in Washington, D.C., Kendall said the flight demonstrated “within-visual-range engagements” against a manned F-16, piloted by an Airman with “2,000 or 3,000 hours of experience.” Three different versions were tested in about 10-12 situations, with Kendall controlling when the AI took over. The AI then was able to maneuver the aicraft and could simulatan an "engagement" with the adversary using short-range missiles or the F-16’s gun.
“It was roughly an even fight,” Kendall said. “But against a less experienced pilot, the AI, the automation would have performed better.”
Pilots with 2,000-3,000 flight hours are considered “senior pilots,” one step below the top rating of “command pilot.”
Kendall emphasized the AI is not yet ready to be deployed—but suggested it is well on its way to being so...
 
Josh_TN said:
Where does the 4000 lb number come from?
Click to expand...
as a step up from what the F22 carries in missile terms.

6x AMRAAM and 2x AIM9s is ~2500lbs. 6x 500lb missiles (like Sparrow) is 3000lbs. Meteor is 420lbs, in case the AIM260s are something like that. The "2x 1000lb, 2x AMRAAM, and 2x AIM9" load seems to be the physical max in terms of bay volume, and that's ~3200lbs.

Given the distances NGAD will have fly, it makes sense to carry more missiles than F15 or F22 natively do. Super Hornets and Eagle IIs have been showing ~10x AMRAAMs in heavy AA mode. So I went with 10x AMRAAM weights (~3500lbs) plus 2x AIM9 weights (~400lbs) for ~3900lbs, then rounded to nearest 1000lbs to get 4000. If the AIM260 ends up heavier, I would increase the expected weight carried to ~6000lbs (10x500, + 2x200)
 
Scott Kenny said:
as a step up from what the F22 carries in missile terms.

6x AMRAAM and 2x AIM9s is ~2500lbs. 6x 500lb missiles (like Sparrow) is 3000lbs. Meteor is 420lbs, in case the AIM260s are something like that. The "2x 1000lb, 2x AMRAAM, and 2x AIM9" load seems to be the physical max in terms of bay volume, and that's ~3200lbs.

Given the distances NGAD will have fly, it makes sense to carry more missiles than F15 or F22 natively do. Super Hornets and Eagle IIs have been showing ~10x AMRAAMs in heavy AA mode. So I went with 10x AMRAAM weights (~3500lbs) plus 2x AIM9 weights (~400lbs) for ~3900lbs, then rounded to nearest 1000lbs to get 4000. If the AIM260 ends up heavier, I would increase the expected weight carried to ~6000lbs (10x500, + 2x200)
Click to expand...

So you made the numbers up? I am not seeing a source in that post.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes those numbers are MINE.

I have laid out the reasoning for why I think they're close to what the USAF is planning.
Click to expand...
I generally enjoy your posts, but I think no one here has anything like a good idea of where NGADS requirements are at.

EDIT: or certainly not those that are a lot say so.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom