Scaled Composites Model 437 Vanguard

[TomcatViP]

@CiTrus90 : Great post. Thanks for sharing all those valuable remarks and info.

Regarding the apparent absence of a wb, I wonder if we do not have here what we discussed some times ago: a wet bomb bay.

See the trapezoidal bulge under the fuselage as a conformal tank that host semi-conformal missiles and bombs. Once the the 437 is required to be the shooter for a manned aircraft, the aerodynamic fairing is ejected, the armament exposed and launched, leaving the underbelly nearly smooth with the RCS regaining an optimal value for a safe egress.
Alternatively, the fairing might even have deployable wings and glide (see the flying missile rail RFI from DARPA).

@sublight_ : your comment in the light weight stealth airplane thread brought me back to this long time idea. Hence, I think it´s fair I delegate to you to take all the heat from reader comments that time!

 

[CiTrus90]

Regarding the apparent absence of a wb, I wonder if we do not have here what we discussed some times ago: a wet bomb bay.

See the trapezoidal bulge under the fuselage as a conformal tank that host semi-conformal missiles and bombs. Once the the 437 is required to be the shooter for a manned aircraft, the aerodynamic fairing is ejected, the armament exposed and launched, leaving the underbelly nearly smooth with the RCS regaining an optimal value for a safe egress.
Alternatively, the fairing might even have deployable wings and glide (see the flying missile rail RFI from DARPA).

Mmmh...I'm not too sold on the idea.

There is a lot of fasteners on those panels, I don't think it's an ejectable faring. I believe there is indeed an internal bay, but it might be provisionally closed so far.

BTW there are a lot of cool pics on Scaled Composites' site for the Vanguard, with one of the underside as well

 

[TomcatViP]

You are right. not the case with the 437.

Wb here?

 

[Josh_TN]

Other companies which shall remain nameless are proposing to 3D print almost the entire aircraft at a forward location on demand. Northrop is not (yet) proposing this, but Northrop's price for the 437 and derivatives is..... cheap. Very cheap.

How do we know anything about the 437 price?

I believe I read somewhere that GA or Anduril, I think the latter, came to the conclusion that an old fashioned aluminum fuselage was cheaper to produce at this size than any 3D printing but the source article escapes me. I have never heard of forward based production via 3D printing for any of the prospective CCA aircraft, though most of them seem to easily break down into TEUs. I do not think any of the designs use wing tanks and so they can easily be removed.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How do we know anything about the 437 price?

I believe I read somewhere that GA or Anduril, I think the latter, came to the conclusion that an old fashioned aluminum fuselage was cheaper to produce at this size than any 3D printing but the source article escapes me. I have never heard of forward based production via 3D printing for any of the prospective CCA aircraft, though most of them seem to easily break down into TEUs. I do not think any of the designs use wing tanks and so they can easily be removed.

Even if you do have wing tanks in the CCA, you put quick-disconnect fittings where the fuel lines go into the fuselage. That way you could have a full fuel system and it self-seals once you open the QDs.

A basic Cessna has wing tanks, it takes no extra time to disconnect them than it would if the tanks were not in the wings. (4 bolts, a couple of electrical connections, a single AN fuel fitting to disconnect, plus flaps and aileron cables that happen to have turnbuckles right there...)

If I was building a CCA with intent to disassemble into a 40ft ISO box, I'd mount all the electrical actuators to the wings so all I have to do to undo the wings is electrical connections, fuel, and the mounting bolts. Nothing mounted to the fuselage that moves wing flaps like on the F16s. Weight wise it's better to empty the wing tanks before removal, but it's not required.

 

[H_K]

BTW there are a lot of cool pics on Scaled Composites' site for the Vanguard, with one of the underside as well

Yes you can actually see the outline of the weapons bay in this pic (I added the red highlights).

 

[Training_Dummy]

Four CUDA or Peregrine with IR seekers and datalink would be an interesting alternative to two AMRAAMs. Might even have a chance to launch the salvo and actually have a shot at surviving.

 

[Manuducati]

Interesting article by "The War Zone", interviewing Colin Miller, sector Vice-President of Engineering at Northrop Grumman Aeronautics Systems (checked on LinkedIn).

As for the camouflaged tail surfaces:
"Colin Miller: You’ll notice it’s [the Model 437 Vanguard] got digital camo on the tails, right? And that is on purpose. And it’s not just because it’s cool, although I think it is, it is because the the main purpose of this effort, the Digital Pathfinder effort, was to build a set of wings for Model 437 stressing our digital engineering environment."

Everything We Just Learned About The Model 437 Vanguard Technology Demonstrator Jet

Senior Northrop Grumman official talks digital engineering, advanced manufacturing, and more in an exclusive interview on the Model 437.

www.twz.com

 

[F119Doctor]

Cruise SFC of the PW535 is about 0.44lb/h/lb. Let's cruise at half-throttle, so 1750lbf x 0.44 == 770lb/hr.

Six hours endurance would require 4,620lbs of fuel without any consideration for take-off / climb. Round it to 5,000lb and that's a 0.5 fuel-fraction.

Feasible?

A lot depends on the cruising altitude. If you assume 0.8 / 30K cruise (6.65 psi inlet condition) with a 3400 lb thrust engine with a 0.44 SFC, the fuel flow would be around 675 pph. If you are cruising at less than rated power, I would believe 500 pph fuel flow at 30K cruise. Lower the higher you go.

 

[Josh_TN]

Four CUDA or Peregrine with IR seekers and datalink would be an interesting alternative to two AMRAAMs. Might even have a chance to launch the salvo and actually have a shot at surviving.

They don’t exist, at least not in sufficient numbers even if there’s a black program. Any CCA is going to need to use AIM-120s because that’s what is in stock. AIM-260 will be a future option with the same footprint.

 

[Training_Dummy]

They don’t exist, at least not in sufficient numbers even if there’s a black program. Any CCA is going to need to use AIM-120s because that’s what is in stock. AIM-260 will be a future option with the same footprint.

Well 437 is just a demonstrator not a named program, so was more just thinking conceptually as to how it might fit into a future NGAD system increment with future air to air missles, and allowed myself a fevered dream where the MIC and US doesn’t do some weird, go nowhere dance around CUDA, Peregrine, LREW, LRAAM and MAM or whatever alphanumeric grab bag du jour is in vogue, and instead develops a smaller profile but more capable version of AIM-9X-2, an objectively better version of D3 (range, seeker, packability) and a more refined version of whatever we are using AIM-174B for. Apologies.

 

[quellish]

You are right. not the case with the 437.

Wb here?

Interesting tail is interesting.

 

[Training_Dummy]

If this could be scaled up 20-40% you might squeeze in 4-6 AMRAAMs plus have room for a decent IRST and a few EMRIS arrays. If you get to +4k nm type range you’d have a plethora of basing options.

 

[Josh_TN]

If this could be scaled up 20-40% you might squeeze in 4-6 AMRAAMs plus have room for a decent IRST and a few EMRIS arrays. If you get to +4k nm type range you’d have a plethora of basing options.

I think all of that except the 4 AAMs likely could be achieved now, and I don’t think this is a sub scale demonstrator given the known dimensions of the two Inrc1 aircraft. If anything this is a slightly larger aircraft.

I’m pretty sure the USAF is going to accept a two BVR AAM internal limit, especially if externally mounted decoys controlled by the AI agent make up the rest of the payload. For 700# internal and 600# external, you could have an AI drone controlling a pair of ADM-160s making some false targets while it snuck into a no escape range. Do that twice and win once and it still probably does not cover the cost of a J-20 even adjusted for purchasing power.

 

[Training_Dummy]

I think all of that except the 4 AAMs likely could be achieved now, and I don’t think this is a sub scale demonstrator given the known dimensions of the two Inrc1 aircraft. If anything this is a slightly larger aircraft.

I’m pretty sure the USAF is going to accept a two BVR AAM internal limit, especially if externally mounted decoys controlled by the AI agent make up the rest of the payload. For 700# internal and 600# external, you could have an AI drone controlling a pair of ADM-160s making some false targets while it snuck into a no escape range. Do that twice and win once and it still probably does not cover the cost of a J-20 even adjusted for purchasing power.

You have me in violent agreement, but thoughts on range and basing?