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

BTW, the F-8 owed its best-of-the-war win/loss ratio mostly to tactics and training. F-4 crews had to learn ACM, but also long range intercept, various kinds of ground attack and in USAF's case nuclear strike. Plus, F-4 crews weren't trained that much in the concept of maneuvering combat in the first part of the war. F-8s did limited bombing, but first and foremost they lived, breathed and trained for air combat. Arguably that's why they had the best win/loss ratio up through 1968. F-4 got to be a lot better once the crews were trained to use the F-04 strengths, including acceleration, fighting in the vertical and to force the MiGs to sustain their turn where they ran out of energy.
Click to expand...

This is all true, but the bottom line is that the Phantom wasn't built for the kind of combat it experienced over Vietnam. It's was built to take down targets at long range with Sparrow missiles at high speeds. The people in charge thought BVR was the future of air combat and that subsonic ACM was dead. Vietnam proved that it wasn't. Today we see a lot of the same talk. Of course it might be true that WVR combat is certain death with high off-boresight missiles, but what if that isn't the case in 15 years. Further advancements in stealth or some other technology might prove us wrong. A lot of modern fighters can sustain 9g, it's nothing out of the ordinary.
 
NG X-47B derived manned design once again.

http://defensetech.org/2005/05/17/liquid-lasers-heating-up/
 

Attachments

  • ng_laser.jpg
    ng_laser.jpg
    8.1 KB · Views: 2,824
Maki said:
This is all true, but the bottom line is that the Phantom wasn't built for the kind of combat it experienced over Vietnam. It's was built to take down targets at long range with Sparrow missiles at high speeds. The people in charge thought BVR was the future of air combat and that subsonic ACM was dead. Vietnam proved that it wasn't. Today we see a lot of the same talk. Of course it might be true that WVR combat is certain death with high off-boresight missiles, but what if that isn't the case in 15 years. Further advancements in stealth or some other technology might prove us wrong. A lot of modern fighters can sustain 9g, it's nothing out of the ordinary.
Click to expand...

How many kills over the Bekaa valley were guns kills and how many were due to missiles in 1982? IIRC, most were all aspect AIM-9/Python kills, followed by AIM-7's, then some gun kills. I think it's safe to say our missile tech has advanced somewhat since then. I wouldn't use Vietnam as a reference today, for A2A combat, any more than I would Korea or WW2.

Not to mention, stealth technology greatly changes the scenario as well. It may be planes will need guns in the future just to be able to take out vehicles missile seekers can't see. Also, maybe in thirty years directed energy weapons will be truly usable on smaller, tactical, aerial vehicles; in which case, maneuvering becomes somewhat useless.

I can see a future where aerial combat becomes a game of cat and mouse, where our weapons are so good, in and of themselves they can't be avoided if they can locate the target. It will be one of ultra-stealth and high energy weapons for both attack and defense (against missiles). Maybe even the aircraft will have some kind of coating to reflect the high energy weapons away from the vehicle at low angles of incidence. Like a flying wing turning near edge on to bounce/angle the energy away and off into space/the atmosphere. The other area will be in the hypersonic arena, for fast reaction and their speed in and of itself will be difficult to defend against. Of course, I'm right and I'm wrong. That's why the future is so damned hard to predict. ;)
 
How many kills over the Bekaa valley were guns kills and how many were due to missiles in 1982? IIRC, most were all aspect AIM-9/Python kills, followed by AIM-7's, then some gun kills. I think it's safe to say our missile tech has advanced somewhat since then. I wouldn't use Vietnam as a reference today, for A2A combat, any more than I would Korea or WW2.
Click to expand...

I believe some of you have misunderstood me. Technology has improved since Vietnam but the ability of humans to make bad decisions has not. The reference to Vietnam was not about A2A combat of the era (much has changed since then), but about making a poor prediction of what A2A combat was to be. They predicted (prematurely) that BVR combat was the future. The Phantom was built for that. Reality proved that WVR combat was still very much alive. Even you're example of combat over the Bekaa valley shows that most kills were made in WVR combat (some even with guns). Missile technology has improved drastically since then, but I have serious doubt in their effectiveness in stealth vs stealth air combat. I think it's smart that NGAD planner are not discarding maneuverability for this future fighter. It
might prove to be a smart decision. Like you said, the future is hard to predict :)
 
Vietnam is a tricky example to use. BVR could well have been the future during that period, but during the war politics forced restrictive ROEs on pilots, taking away the BVR option. BVR wasn't effective in Vietnam because it wasn't employed. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been effective. Part of the reason the AIM-7E did so poorly in Vietnam was due to the fact that it had to be fired in a turning WVR fight that it wasn't suited for. This of course does not excuse the AIM-9 from missing about 85% of its targets, but it does go to show that the poor AAM performance in Vietnam was due in part at least to factors unrelated to the actual technology of the era.
 
True, the ROE did restrict BVR combat, but I think the decision wasn't purely political. I think proper identification of friend or foe was somewhat of a problem back then. I believe there was an incident were an F-105 was shot down by a friendly at BVR distance. To avoid such problems, pilots were ordered visual ID before firing. Today IFF presumably works like a charm, but in 20 years when stealth fighters become more common, air combat may become more like submarine warfare and IFF may become more tricky.

But to return to the subject, after staring at Boeing's concept drawings, I still couldn't understand the choice of a tailless fighter. I see the huge advantages of making a plane without rudders and tail planes (stealth, less drag, less weight, less trouble for structural engineers...etc), but I'm totally puzzled how they plan on reducing landing speeds and have a decent bring back capability with such low aspect ratio wings and no additional control surfaces. Could we see a return of blown wings in a Navy Fighter or is there some new unclassified technology I'm not aware of ;D? Maybe you guys have some ideas?
 
For Vietnam it wasn't just ROE/FF that were obstacles but from what I've read, the reliability of the Sparrow to begin with was just bad altogether. The Crusader had the benefit of a gun but in some cases, it jammed during sustained turning.

Though missle technology has advanced, though sensors have enhanced situational awareness exponentially(especially the DAS on the JSF), I still think it's better to have an internal gun than not, as a last resort weapon. Plus, until the military comes up with lasers in operational use as guided weapons, what else could a pilot use once his missles are all expended? The situations upon which this scenario is likely are slim, but a gun can't hurt.
 
Maki said:
But to return to the subject, after staring at Boeing's concept drawings, I still couldn't understand the choice of a tailless fighter. I see the huge advantages of making a plane without rudders and tail planes (stealth, less drag, less weight, less trouble for structural engineers...etc), but I'm totally puzzled how they plan on reducing landing speeds and have a decent bring back capability with such low aspect ratio wings and no additional control surfaces. Could we see a return of blown wings in a Navy Fighter or is there some new unclassified technology I'm not aware of ;D? Maybe you guys have some ideas?
Click to expand...

I doubt it uses blown wings, that would just add weight. It just has good high alpha aero and it's probably also lighter than a conventionally tailed aircraft, because it doesn't have the tail structures themselves and the structures required to support them. Maybe they are planning to land the way the X-31 did with that automated system that brings it in real slow at high alpha then rotates just before landing to avoid a tail strike?
 
I still couldn't understand the choice of a tailless fighter. I see the huge advantages of making a plane without rudders and tail planes (stealth, less drag, less weight, less trouble for structural engineers...etc), but I'm totally puzzled how they plan on reducing landing speeds and have a decent bring back capability with such low aspect ratio wings and no additional control surfaces.
Click to expand...

It seams you answered your own question 80% of the way. A key to landing a tailless fighter on an aircraft carrier is not to use some new/old fancy control surfaces but to be truly tailless and rather use the power of the engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCELX-NgqFQ

Operationally deployed trust vectoring is still pretty crude not and not as reliable as flight controls but with introduction of fluidic trust vector control you solve that problem too and reduce even more weight

http://www.billcrowther.net/publications/conference/Fluidic_thrust_Vectoring_,RAeS_Cambridge_June_2002.pdf

Third, if you are going to make it tailless, better go all the way and save even more weight and reduce RCS by loosing the controls on the wings too and again create you own control airflow.

http://www.baesystems.com/AboutUs/ShowcaseUAVDemonstratesFlaplessFlight/index.htm
http://journals.pepublishing.com/content/k7242w814m3194lx/fulltext.pdf

Software will also be the key. You can replace a lot of landing controls and even the pilot with the right kind of software, reducing even more drag and weight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTMpq_8SSCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaUoZsS5roI

Flight controls are so last century. F-35B is proof that you can land a conventionally looking airplane without any aerodynamic flight controls at 0 airspeed. For SSTOL, it's all about cutting your weight, and being able to distribute your full engine trust in 4 axis. Drag and gravity take care of the other two axis.
 
Looking Towards the Next Generation:

The Air Force last week began its search for the replacement to the F-22. This platform, which USAF officials have provisionally dubbed the Next Generation Tactical Aircraft, is eyed for initial operations around 2030. In a notice to industry, Aeronautical Systems Center officials at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, have asked for input on material concepts and technology for this platform. Responses are due by Dec. 17. The Next Gen Tacair aircraft's primary mission will be offensive and defensive counterair, including integrated air and missile defense, close air support, and air interdiction, states the Nov. 3 solicitation. The platform may also fulfill airborne electronic attack and intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance functions, it notes. "It must be able to operate in the anti-access/area-denial environment that will exist in the 2030-2050 timeframe," reads the document. ASC will use the feedback to support Air Combat Command as it refines the aircraft's requirements. (For more, read The Sixth Generation Fighter from the Air Force Magazine archives.)
-----------------------------------------------------
Next Generation Tactical Aircraft, so is this a change in acronym?
Link to solicitation - https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=782e30c9c983f85e7952c2adc426b189&tab=core&_cview=1
 
Aeronautical Systems Center officials at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, have asked for input on material concepts and technology for this platform. Responses are due by Dec. 17.
Click to expand...

How about we make our own responses to requirement and post them all on the Dec 17?
I think that would be fun, especially years down the road when the official ones come to light.

I propose everyone to prepare his idea into 1 page proposal:
First 1/3 of the page to be dedicated a Perspective and/or 3-view of the idea,
Middle 1/3 to be a table with basic specifications and data on the concept
Final 1/3 to be a summary of the basic idea and operation of the proposal

I know this page is for real secret projects but this one will likely take decades to get unveiled....and who knows, maybe some of the officials are reading this forum and take notice our ideas on Dec 17th.
::)
 
I somehow like the idea. :) I dont have enough knowledge to design the whole vehicle, but I have some ideas about the operational concept of the future air dominance fighter.
 
I propose being Boeing / Northrop. I'm thinking YF 23 operational concept (stealth, supercruise, range) with large (2 meter, though it only needs 1m to defeat current russian 2 meter vhf AESA I believe) planform alignment / advent engines, conformal radar arrays (wing leading edges) tailess and stabilator less / essentially a flying wing with forebody. Will have 3 view Dec. Possible visual stealth if metametals make progress within the next 20 years for deployment. If aircraft designed to accept conformal applique coatings, not so ridiculous.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j490R_bJup7yw-14VX1GcXRjTmRA?docId=CNG.56cbb5c689d7c5beef36bbbb590464e3.01
 
If the mission is air to air how about a cross between the Reaction Engines LAPCAT A2 and the Boeing YAL-1... COIL laser combined with Mach 5 at 80,000 feet. Ought to do the job of shooting down anything and everything...
 
bobbymike said:
Looking Towards the Next Generation:

The Air Force last week began its search for the replacement to the F-22. This platform, which USAF officials have provisionally dubbed the Next Generation Tactical Aircraft, is eyed for initial operations around 2030. In a notice to industry, Aeronautical Systems Center officials at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, have asked for input on material concepts and technology for this platform. Responses are due by Dec. 17. The Next Gen Tacair aircraft's primary mission will be offensive and defensive counterair, including integrated air and missile defense, close air support, and air interdiction, states the Nov. 3 solicitation. The platform may also fulfill airborne electronic attack and intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance functions, it notes. "It must be able to operate in the anti-access/area-denial environment that will exist in the 2030-2050 timeframe," reads the document. ASC will use the feedback to support Air Combat Command as it refines the aircraft's requirements. (For more, read The Sixth Generation Fighter from the Air Force Magazine archives.)
-----------------------------------------------------
Next Generation Tactical Aircraft, so is this a change in acronym?
Link to solicitation - https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=782e30c9c983f85e7952c2adc426b189&tab=core&_cview=1
Click to expand...

Before everybody gets all excited note: "... Market Research ... No contract is intended to be awarded as a result of this CRFI"
 
Colonial-Marine said:
donnage99 said:
The change of name hints more toward an approach that uses a combination of different assets (not neccesary a fighter) to achieve air dominance, instead of building a next generation fighter in its purest sense.
Click to expand...

A fighter must be at the center of any air-superiority plan in my opinion, I don't know what else the Pentagon would think.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe the definition of what a fighter is is changing. Why not have a larger platform that can carry more missiles (and potentially shoot down more enemy aircraft), and still be fast and stealthy. If you have smaller air to air unmanned "fighters" to do other fighter tasks.

Some of the proposals look like they don't have enough room for missiles, or a very small bay. Maybe the main weapon will be energy/laser for ground and air targets. In my opinion I think this 6th gen will look a lot different than the traditional Sukhoi, Mig, f-22, f-35.
 
kcran567 said:
Well, maybe the definition of what a fighter is is changing. Why not have a larger platform that can carry more missiles (and potentially shoot down more enemy aircraft), and still be fast and stealthy. If you have smaller air to air unmanned "fighters" to do other fighter tasks.
Click to expand...

That's going back to the old missileer concept, and I don't know how valid it is nowadays. I seem to remember that BVR engagements remain the exception.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
If the mission is air to air how about a cross between the Reaction Engines LAPCAT A2 and the Boeing YAL-1... COIL laser combined with Mach 5 at 80,000 feet. Ought to do the job of shooting down anything and everything...
Click to expand...

I agree in that I don't see how any aircraft can survive in the 2030 to 2050 time frame without at least defensive DEW. Wouldn't it be interesting if bombers started to look more like B-17's, with rear, belly and top turret DEW weapons, than sleek B-2's :D
 
bobbymike said:
I agree in that I don't see how any aircraft can survive in the 2030 to 2050 time frame without at least defensive DEW. Wouldn't it be interesting if bombers started to look more like B-17's, with rear, belly and top turret DEW weapons, than sleek B-2's :D
Click to expand...

It still needs to be fuel sufficient, so the design still needs to look sleek.
 
From the Air Force Association:

Generational Talk:

The Air Force is "not backing away" from the challenge posed by the Russian T-50 and Chinese J-20 fifth generation fighters, Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told the Daily Report. "We have extensive [research and development] underway" in technology areas applicable to a sixth generation fighter, he said during an interview in his Pentagon office. These activities include work in the areas of propulsion, sensors, materials, manufacturing, datalinks, apertures, and high-resolution radar, he explained. And "while they're not specific to a mission yet, [these technologies] certainly will lead to such an effort, if we chose to move out on one," Schwartz said. The Air Force has more than "$2 billion in R&D" for these activities, he noted. Plus, the Air Force is investing substantial funds in making the F-22 "all that we can make it be," he emphasized. That initiative is a multi-billion-dollar effort, he said, and one of USAF's "half a dozen or so largest programs." The money is in the service's Fiscal 2012 budget request and "we're committed to that," said Schwartz.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2 billion a year for 6th generation R&D is pretty good considering the Next Generation Bomber got $3.7 billion for the next FIVE YEARS. That's seems like significant research dollars, T-50 and J-20 competition waking the US up a little? I still think 20 F-22's/year until significant F-35's come online would have been nice.
 
Boeing keeps popping up for the 6th generation fighter, must be assuming this is some of the legacy capability they got when they ate MDD. Keep in mind that except for the X-32, Boeing never flew a plane that lit an afterburner or was supposed to go faster than sound.

Let's just hope that all this talk of how we'll deal with PAK-FA et al someday isn't another case of:

"The best they have is not as good as what we haven't got".
 
bobbymike said:
$2 billion a year for 6th generation R&D is pretty good considering the Next Generation Bomber got $3.7 billion for the next FIVE YEARS. That's seems like significant research dollars, T-50 and J-20 competition waking the US up a little? I still think 20 F-22's/year until significant F-35's come online would have been nice.
Click to expand...

I believe the reason why there's a copious amount of money going into this is because the various technologies that accumulate to the 3.7 billion dollars are not dedicated to 6th generation fighter, but rather technologies that can be utilised in future platforms in general, some of which can be applied in the NGB.
 
Two videos from Boeing on their 6th Generation Fighter concept. The blurriness is because the presentation was in 3D.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqkJrZQkr8w&feature=player_embedded#at=38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDfqJP34XyU&feature=player_embedded#at=213
 
From Stephen Trimble's The DEW Line:

Apologies for the fuzziness. There's nothing wrong with you computer screen. Boeing presented the videos in 3D, but it's still impressive -- albeit, slightly eye-crossing -- in normal view.

Dan Seal, program manager of Boeing's immersive development environment, briefs reporters on 7 June in St. Louis about the company's new tools for designing the next generation of air dominance fighters.
Click to expand...

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/06/videos-a-slightly-fuzzy-look-i.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqkJrZQkr8w&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDfqJP34XyU&feature=related
 
I do not have the hardware to confirm this, but I bet that those videos are shown in 3D, or we are looking at a 2D capture of a 3D video. This is what is causing the fuzzy look.

Adam
 
That is what the narrator / spokesperson said multiple times - it was just a recording of dual polarised footage.
 
flateric said:
well, Flight Int. artist was somewhat visionary back in 2003)
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/2003/2003%20-%200804.pdf


(thanks Hesham for finding this stuff)
Click to expand...

It's a friggin' stealth fighter with friggin' laser beams attached to it's friggin.....er..well, pretty much everywhere.

But the illustration, simple as it may be, illustrates one of the advantages of DEW: versatility. Target designation, sensor disruption, active defense (think airborne CIWS), offensive weapon....You gotta love it B)

Of course, we're still some way from fighter-size DEW, but I have no doubt that it's the future.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
 
I found this googling but I have no idea who drew it. -SP
 

Attachments

  • BoeingFA-50bullfrog.jpg
    BoeingFA-50bullfrog.jpg
    228.9 KB · Views: 1,814
bagera3005 is very creative and extremely productive. He invents lots of great pseudo-Boeing or -Lockheed designs that are not based on any actual project (despite the fact that he also does the real ones, too). I told him once that he really ought to label his work accordingly ("fictional design" or "based on an actual design", or at least sign the work for later reference, but he keeps posting his work on several forums and this can be misleading to some people.
 
that doesn't have enough room to house engines and the weapon bays contents, let alone all the other components and fuel. perhaps making it 20% larger in all directions might do the trick.
 
I can see the TX getting produced, FX maybe, but the BX has issues with its cockpit being unrealistically far back. Otherwise it looks like a decent stab at a supersonic stealth aircraft.
 
Stephen Trimble reports from the snakes nest
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/09/photos-fighter-bomber-trainer.html
 

Attachments

  • Boeing FX thumb.jpg
    Boeing FX thumb.jpg
    63.9 KB · Views: 2,693
  • NG FX thumb.jpg
    NG FX thumb.jpg
    75.3 KB · Views: 1,400
moar from DefenseTech
http://www.defensetech.org/2011/09/19/boeings-latest-fighter-concept/
 

Attachments

  • BoeingnewF-X.jpg
    BoeingnewF-X.jpg
    23.3 KB · Views: 1,362

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom